Ruling of the Court of Appeals On April 15, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC's Joint Decision and held as follows: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENED for lack of merit. With the MODIFICATION increasing the award of civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000.00 each, and awarding P30,000.00 as exemplary damages in Criminal Case Nos. 2755-M-2005 and 2756-M-2005, the Joint Decision dated November 10, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 18, is AFFIRMED in all other respects. All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid. SO ORDERED.[8] Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, Padlan, through his counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal[9] dated May 13, 2014 manifesting his intention to appeal the CA Decision to this Court. In a Resolution[10] dated January 12, 2015, this Court directed the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its Manifestation[11] dated April 15, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed this Court that it was adopting all arguments adduced in its Appellee's Brief dated May 21, 2013 in lieu of filing a Supplemental Brief. Likewise, Padlan filed a Manifestation[12] dated May 6, 2015, indicating that he would no longer file a Supplemental Brief since he had already argued all the relevant issues in his Appellant's Brief. Issue The lone issue raised by Padlan in his Appellant's Brief is whether the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the crimes imputed against him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to Padlan, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of his innocence. Padlan challenges the credibility of "AAA" and insists that he was in a different place at the time the alleged crimes were committed. Padlan thus prays for his acquittal. Our Ruling The appeal lacks merit. After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of both the RTC and CA that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes of rape

Select target paragraph3