personally delivered his son to the police station on October 5, 2006 because a case was filed against him. On November 24, 2014, EEE was convicted by the RTC of the crime charged. The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused EEE is hereby sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the victim the amount of P100,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 indemnity. SO ORDERED.[9] The trial court opined that it was not impossible for EEE to be at the locus criminis because to cover the distance of three kilometers would surely not consume one hour of normal walking and even much less when done in a hurry. It ruled that where an accused person's alibi is established only by himself, his relatives, and friends, the denial of culpability should be accorded the strictest scrutiny as they are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the testimonies of the more credible witnesses for the prosecution. To the court's mind, the threat of EEE to AAA - that she would be scolded by BBB and that both of them would go to jail - is serious enough to silence her and surrender her womanhood. Furthermore, it was held that courts are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to physical hardship and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings against the accused. Finally, the court noted that AAA was crying when EEE was testifying in the witness stand; her tears added poignancy to verity born out of human nature and experience. EEE elevated the case to the CA, arguing that: the crime of rape could not be committed considering that he and BBB, together with AAA, no longer lived together since April 2006; the aggravating circumstance of force, threat or intimidation was not proven because the consent to perform sexual congress was given before the alleged threat was made towards AAA; even assuming that such remark was made, it could qualify only as a mere precaution or advice to her after the consensual sex was already consummated; and, if at all, he is only guilty of qualified seduction under Article 337 of the RPC. Convinced that sufficient proof was presented by the prosecution to support the conviction of EEE, the CA dismissed the appeal. It ruled that: AAA did not deny that they were living separately from him but such separation happened after the commission of the crime; EEE failed to disprove that his father's ricefield was near their house and that it was possible for him to traverse these places within a span of an hour; his threat was enough to instill fear on AAA, silencing her on the rape committed; and there is no credence in his assertion that AAA filed the case just