Appellant submits that the court a quo committed the following errors: chanrob1es v irtual 1aw library "I The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the accused was innocent of the crime charged in the three informations; "II The trial court gravely erred in not considering that the accused could not have raped Mirasol Nana on January 17, 1998 and January 22, 1998, as there [was] no reason for the said private complainant to go to the place where the alleged crime of rape were committed because there [was] no corn to get or to harvest at that time "III The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the testimonies of Mirasol Nana, Loida Nana and Teresa Nana were not credible, not true, false, fabricated, and full of lies; "IV The trial court gravely erred in not considering that there [was] reasonable doubt as to the truth of the rape charges. "V The trial court gravely erred in not considering the fact that the accused could not have committed the crime of rape against Teresa Nana on June 2, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. as he was then attending a seminar sponsored by the NIA at that time from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. of said date of June 2, 1998, and hence, there was physical impossibility for the said accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was allegedly committed." 16 Basically, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence against him. The Court’s Ruling The appeal has no merit. Consistent with current jurisprudence, the Court grants the victims indemnity ex delicto in addition to the damages already awarded, but deletes the award of exemplary damages.