WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Raul Macapagal y Manalo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, on two counts, through sexual intercourse and one count of rape through sexual assault. As regards rape through sexual intercourse, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua for each count without eligibility for parole and to pay the offended party civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P30,000.00, in each of the two cases. As regards the rape committed through sexual assault, accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment often (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party civil indemnity of P30,000.00, moral damages of P30,000.00 and exemplary damages of P15,000.00. SO ORDERED.[9] The RTC found BBB's testimony credible as she was able to narrate clearly and unwaveringly how each of the rape incidents was done to her by appellant, her very own father, despite rigid cross-examinations conducted by the defense. The RTC noted that the genital examination conducted on BBB, showing the presence of old hymenal lacerations, is consistent with the finding of previous sexual intercourse. With respect to appellant's defenses, the RTC held that his lame excuses of presence of other family members, lights turned on overnight and open bedroom door during the rape incidents, cannot prevail over the categorical narration of BBB of her defloration in the hands of appellant. As to the claim that BBB was angry at appellant as she suffered severe bruises when appellant learned that she was impregnated by her boyfriend, the RTC pointed out that he failed to prove that BBB indeed had a boyfriend that time. The RTC was also not impressed by appellant's claim that the malicious accusations against him are orchestrated by the family of his wife, considering that his in-laws even gave his family material and financial support. Anent the delay in the reporting of the incidents, the RTC found the same as justified in view of appellant's constant showing of his knife to BBB, and his verbal threat upon her while she was being raped to the effect that he would kill her should she tell anyone about the incidents. Although BBB cannot state precisely the dates of the rape incidents, the RTC stressed that the supposed inconsistencies merely refer to minor details, which have no effect on her credibility, and that the exact dates of the commission of the crime are not the element of the offense.