FOR THE STATED REASONS, the September 21, 2011 (sic) Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that accused-appellant EDWIN DAGSA y BANTAS @ "WING WING" is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of thirteen (13) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, five (5) months and nine (9) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and further ORDERED to pay the victim, AAA, Php20,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php30,000.00 as moral damages, and Php10,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until its satisfaction. SO ORDERED.[11] On September 17, 2014, accused-appellant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal[12] manifesting his intention to appeal the CA Decision to this Court. In its Resolution dated September 29, 2014, the CA gave due course to accusedappellant's Notice of Appeal and ordered the elevation of the records of the case to this Court.[13] Hence, this appeal was instituted. In a Resolution[14] dated October 12, 2015, this Court, among others, notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. In its Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief)[15] dated December 16, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed this Court that it will no longer file a supplemental brief "there being no significant transaction, occurrence or event that happened since the filing of its Appellee's Brief [with the CA] dated March 17, 2014." Accused-appellant, likewise filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of a Supplemental Brief)[16] dated December 28, 2015, indicating that he will no longer file a Supplemental Brief "since no new issues material to the case which were not elaborated upon in the Appellant's Brief were discovered and that he "had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in his brief, hence, the filing of a Supplemental Brief would only be a repetition of the arguments raised therein." The appeal lacks merit. The CA did not commit error in finding accused-appellant not liable for rape.