G.R. No. 107800 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Rolly Paranzo alias Lorenzo Parani guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua , to indemnify complainant Anna Liza Jacobe in the amount P30,000.00, and to pay the costs. [3] The accused-appellant appeals to this Court on the following assignment of errors: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT WAS NOT CORROBORATED AND TAINTED WITH DOUBT. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL CREDIT AND CONSIDERATION ON (SIC) THE AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE AND TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT WHO OPENLY TESTIFIED THAT SHE LIED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN MAINTAINING THAT COMPLAINANT WAS A MINOR ALTHOUGH NO PROOF OF BIRTH HAS BEEN PRESENTED. [4] The appellant avers that a conviction for the crime of rape must be based on clear and convincing proof of guilt and not merely on the uncorroborated testimony of complainant Anna Liza Jacobe which is not clear and free from any contradiction. He points out that complainants allegation that the rape on November 13, 1991 was committed in the house of a certain Teresa Rivera is not supported by any showing that she indeed slept at the said house on the night of November 12, 1991 and stayed there up to November 13, 1991, and that the complainant, sometime in the course of her testimony, retracted and testified that what she earlier told the lower court was a pure lie, thereby casting doubt on her credibility. Appellant also contends that except for the testimony of Rafaela Jacobe, complainants grandmother, no proof was ever presented to show the exact date of birth and age of the complainant. Furthermore, accused-appellant adverts to certain inconsistencies between the testimony of the complainant and that of Dr. Jesusa Nieves, i.e. Dr. Nieves testified that based on the healed laceration she saw during the examination, it is possible that the victim had sexual intercourse, months or years or not later than seven (7) days or more before; that the abrasion found on victims labia menora is a recent trauma which could have been caused by a rub or friction of a hard blunt object at the area of the genitalia, more or less five (5) days prior to November 15, 1991 (TSN, pp. 5-6, July 16, 1992), whereas complainant testified that on November 13, 1991 at about 1:00 A.M., the accused-appellant raped her and as a matter of fact blood came out of her private part (TSN, p. 4, March 4, 1992; TSN, pp. 15-16, March 25, 1992). Thus, it was not possible that complainant was raped on November 13, 1991, which is only three (3) days before she was physically examined. The Solicitor General filed brief for the appellee praying for the affirmance of the judgment of conviction of the accused-appellant and for the increase in the civil indemnity from P30,0