reasonable doubt of statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC and violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610. It found that AAA was born on October 7, 1999, as shown by in her birth certificate, and that she was eleven (11) years old when the two separate sexual abuses occurred. The trial court held that the testimony of AAA was clear, candid, straightforward, and convincing regarding the sexual abuses she suffered at the hands of her uncle. The RTC also ruled that the medico-legal certificate corroborated the testimony of AAA. The RTC disposed the case in this wise: WHEREFORE, finding Dominador Udtohan y Jose guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Statutory Rape and violation of Sec. 5(b) R.A. 7610, this court hereby sentences him as follows: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary In Crim. Case No. 146314 to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay AAA Php75,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php75,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and In Crim. Case No. 146315 to suffer the penalty of 12 years and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to 15 years and 6 months of Reclusion Temporal in its medium period, as maximum; and to pay AAA Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages. SO ORDERED.5 Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated an appeal to the CA. He argued that the testimony of AAA was not credible because there were diverging statements regarding the number of incidents of rape he allegedly committed. The CA Ruling In its assailed Decision, dated May 30, 2016, the CA denied the appeal. It held that the testimony of AAA regarding the two sexual abuses was clear and convincing. The CA underscored that AAA was able to describe each incident of rape and sexual abuse committed by her uncle, accused-appellant. Also, it did not give weight to the selfserving denial of accused-appellant and his claim that AAA's mother, who was mad at his brother, initiated the charges. The CA added that accused-appellant miserably failed to establish the ill-will or motive of AAA or her mother. The fallo reads: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of XXX City, Branch 69, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that, interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum, shall be imposed on the total monetary awards in the appealed decision until the same are fully paid. chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary SO ORDERED.6 Hence, this appeal. ISSUES I THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY. II