Petitioner, on the other hand, was known to the victim and her siblings as the caretaker of their grandmother's ducks. Thus, when petitioner brought some vegetable viand to the victim's house at the day the crime was committed, he was requested by the children to stay with them because they were afraid. AAA entrusted to petitioner her safety and that of her siblings, only to be betrayed. In this situation, the Court finds that because of the relative seniority of petitioner and the trust reposed in him, petitioner abused the full reliance of AAA and misused his ascendancy over the victim. These circumstances can be equated with "intimidation" or "influence" exerted by an adult, covered by Sec. S(b) of RA 7610. Ergo, the element ofbeing subjected to sexual abuse is met. That AAA is a child of tender years does not detract from the weight and credibility of her testimony. On the contrary, even more credence is given to witnesses who were able to candidly relay their testimony before the trial courts under such circumstance. The child's willingness to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is an eloquent testament to the truth of her complaint.[55] In stark contrast, Quimvel's defense-that he did not go to AAA's house on the alleged time of the incident as he was busy watching over the ducks of AAA's grandmother at the latter's house[56]-deserves scant consideration. Jurisprudence is replete of cases holding that denial and alibi are weak defenses, which cannot prevail against positive identification.[57] A categorical and consistent positive identification which is not accompanied by ill motive on the part of the eyewitness prevails over mere denial. Such denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It cannot be given a greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[58] For his alibi to prosper, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove that he was somewhere else when the offense was committed, and that he was so far away it would have been impossible for him to be physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission.[59] But in his version of the events, petitioner failed to prove the element of physical impossibility since the house of AAA's grandmother, where he claimed to be at that time, is only 150 meters, more or less, from AAA's house. His alibi, therefore, cannot be considered exculpatory. Article 336 of tile RPC was never repealed by RA 8353 Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) posits that Art. 336 of the RPC has allegedly been rendered incomplete and ineffective by RA 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape law. The good justice brings our attention to Sec. 4[60] of the special law, which clause expressly repealed Art. 335 of the RPC. And since the