sexual desires.[35] The CA ruled that his acts of purposely touching her breasts and vagina, and the subsequent insertion of his finger and penis into her vagina to commit sexual intercourse with her against her will, clearly established the felony of qualified rape.[36] The CA nonetheless modified the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 09-1119,[37] in light of this Court's ruling in People v. Jugueta.[38] Hence, this appeal. The accused-appellant insists that the CA gravely erred in finding him guilty of the crimes charged.[39] He contends that the evidence of the prosecution fell short of the legal standard to convict him because AAA's testimony was incredible and inconsistent with human experience;[40] that it was unbelievable that AAA failed to seek help from her family members who were then sleeping beside her when the incidents happened;[41] that AAA's testimony showed that she was unsure of the identity of her attacker until the November 5, 2009 incident occurred;[42] and finally, that AAA concocted the charges against him as an act of vengeance for having punished AAA for staying out late with her friends.[43] Ruling The appeal has no merit. The Court cannot give any credence to the accused-appellant's argument that his identity was never established by the prosecution. It was clear from AAA's testimony that she was certain that it was her father who committed the vicious acts against her on November 3, 2009 to November 5, 2009. While the defense attempted to confuse the victim and cast doubt on her testimony on crossexamination, AAA never wavered in her statement that it was the accusedappellant who forced himself upon her on November 4, 2009 as she confirmed his identity when she was able to touch his tattoo while the act was being committed. During the commission of the first lascivious act on November 3, 2009, AAA was able to confirm the accused-appellant's identity when he told her to allow him to touch her breasts. The accused-appellant's identity was again confirmed on November 5, 2009, not only by AAA herself, but also by his younger daughter, CCC, who had awakened while accused-appellant was attempting to force himself on AAA again. In this jurisdiction, the identity of an accused may sufficiently be established by the sound of his voice and familiarity with his physical features where the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely for a number of years.[44]