This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, finding accused-appellant Wilson "Adang" Dreu guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the victim Josephine Guevarra the amount of P30,000.00 as moral damages and the costs of suit.

The information1 [Records, p. 33.] against accused-appellant and his co-accused Minda Dollesin reads:

The facts are as follows:

On the evening of May 10, 1986, Josephine Guevarra and several companions went to a dance in Rangas, Juban, Sorsogon. At around one o’clock in the morning of May 11, 1986, Josephine, with her aunt Leonora Diche and some friends, decided to go home in Mabini, Casiguran, Sorsogon, about two kilometers from Rangas.2 [TSN (Josephine Guevarra), p. 19, Aug. 8, 1988; TSN (Wilson Dreu), p. 6, Nov. 14, 1994.] On their way, Minda Dollesin, Josephine’s close friend of two years, invited her to pass by the former’s (Minda’s) house.3 [TSN (Josephine Guevarra), p. 5, Feb. 17, 1992.] Josephine did not think twice about it and accepted Minda’s invitation. So the two proceeded to Minda’s house, while the rest went their separate ways. Instead of going to Minda’s house, however, the two went to the house of a certain Victor Guerrero where Minda had a small store. Minda said she wanted to get something from her store. Minda went inside the store and told Josephine to wait outside. Moments later, a man whom Josephine recognized as accused-appellant, came out of the store and immediately covered her head and face with a jacket. Josephine instantly felt nauseated as the jacket smelled of rugby. Accused-appellant went behind her and, with his left hand, held both of Josephine’s hands behind her, while his right hand held a bladed weapon at Josephine’s right side. She was then dragged a few meters from the store and led to a grassy area where she was made to lie on the ground. Accused-appellant then removed the jacket from Josephine’s head and removed her pants.

Josephine wanted to fight back, but she felt weak and afraid. She tried to talk accused-appellant out of his design, telling him "that it could be done in a good or nice way,"4 [Id., p. 13.] but accused-appellant paid no heed to her pleas, as he took off his pants. At this point, Josephine lost consciousness. When she came to about 30 minutes later, she found her private parts bleeding. She saw accused-appellant put on his pants and then leave. Josephine then put on her own pants and went to the waiting shed by the roadside.5 [Id., pp. 14-18.] She was weeping when her brother, Jessie Guevarra, and the latter’s companions found her. It was about 1:30 in the morning. Her brother and his companions were going home. Jessie asked Josephine what happened to her but, as the latter was about to recount her ordeal, Minda Dollesin arrived together with Panny6 [Also referred to as "Panit" Dreu in certain parts of the records.] Dreu, accused-appellant’s brother. Minda told them that they should not involve her in the incident.7 [TSN (Jessie Guevarra), pp. 3-5, Jan. 24, 1989.] Jessie then took Josephine home. Later that morning, Josephine told her brother what had happened to her. Jessie then reported the matter to their father, Pablo Guevarra, who lost no time in reporting the incident to the authorities.8 [TSN (Pablo Guevarra), pp. 6-9, June 9, 1987.]

On May 12, 1986, Dr. Erlinda Orense, Municipal Health Officer of Juban, Sorsogon, examined Josephine and found "vaginal laceration at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock position . . . which admits one finger with ease." 9 [Exh. B; Records, p. 7.]

On May 31, 1986, Josephine executed a sworn statement10 [Exh. D; Id., p. 2.] which formed the basis of a criminal complaint11 [Exh. A; Id., p. 1.] against accused-appellant and Minda Dollesin. After preliminary investigation, an information was filed charging both accused with the crime of rape. At the arraignment held on June 9, 1987, only Minda Dollesin was present. She pleaded "not guilty" to the charge12 [Records, p. 45.] and, upon her motion, she was tried separately.

After the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case, counsel for Minda Dollesin, with leave of court, filed a demurrer to evidence.13 [Id., pp. 344-347.] In an order,14 [Id., pp. 348-351.] dated December 8, 1989, the trial court found that the evidence against Minda Dollesin was insufficient and ordered the case archived pending the arrest of accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was finally arrested on February 2, 1991. He was arraigned and he pleaded "not guilty," whereupon, he was tried.

On September 18, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision15 [Rollo, pp. 26-30.] finding accused-appellant guilty of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant assigns the following errors:

The appeal has no merit.

First. Accused-appellant claims he and Josephine were lovers and that what happened in the early morning of May 11, 1986 was consensual. He claims that there is no evidence that he used force and intimidation in having sexual intercourse with Josephine.16 [Brief for the Accused-Appellant, pp. 8-10; Id., pp. 75-77.]

This is without basis. Accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to support his claim that he and Josephine were sweethearts.17 [TSN (Wilson Dreu), pp. 14-16, Nov. 15, 1994.] It appears that shortly after the incident, accused-appellant offered to marry Josephine but the latter spurned the offer, declaring "[she] did not like him to be [her] husband."18 [TSN (Josephine Guevarrra), p. 10, Aug. 8, 1988.] Instead, Josephine tenaciously pursued her case against accused-appellant.19 [Id., pp. 5-6, March 6, 1995.]

The "sweetheart defense" has often been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.20 [People v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, February 9, 2000, citing People v. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999.] As we held in People v. Barcelona:21 [Supra.]

Nor can we sustain accused-appellant’s claim that there was no force or intimidation employed by him in this case. In People v. Fraga,22 [G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000.] we held:

In this case, accused-appellant covered Josephine’s head with a jacket laced with rugby which made her dizzy, making it easy for him to drag her to a secluded area and abuse her. He poked a knife at her side. The nausea and fear not only prevented Josephine from putting up a resistance, but even caused her to lose consciousness.

It is of no moment either that the medical certificate fails to show that Josephine suffered any contusion or abrasion. Although the results of a medical examination may be considered strong evidence to prove that the victim was raped, such evidence is not indispensable in establishing accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence. In People v. Docena, we stated:23 [G.R. Nos. 131894-98, Jan. 20, 2000.]

That there was no medical examination report presented, sign of resistance during the actual copulation, or proof of violence committed against MARGIE does not detract from our conclusion that she was raped. A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. Medical findings or proof of injuries, virginity, or an allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not essential in a prosecution for rape. . .

Second. Accused-appellant claims that Josephine’s testimony is full of inconsistencies and contradictions which render the same incredible and negates any moral certainty as to his guilt. In his brief, he points out the following inconsistencies and contradictions in Josephine’s testimony:

The inconsistencies in Josephine’s testimony, however, concern minor matters and, therefore, are inconsequential. They do not in any way render her account less credible. Moreover, there is no showing of any ulterior motive on the part of Josephine to testify falsely against accused-appellant. We note that she was called to the witness stand four (4) times in a span of seven (7) years, viz.: February 17, 1988, August 8, 1988, February 17, 1992 and March 6, 1995. All throughout, she never wavered on the material points of her testimony: that she went to the dance on the night of May 10, 1986; that she was on her way home from the dance when her friend, Minda Dollesin, asked her to go with her to Minda’s house; that instead of going to Minda Dollesin’s house, they went to the house of a certain Victor Guerrero on the pretext that Minda wanted to get something from her store in that house; that, while waiting for Minda Dollesin by the door, accused-appellant came out of the house, covered her head and face with a jacket that smelled of rugby, held a knife at her side, and pulled her to a grassy area behind the house; that accused-appellant then took the jacket off her head, undressed her by pulling down her pants and underpants; that accused-appellant then took off his own pants and went on top of her; that because of fear and nausea, she lost consciousness; that when she came to, she felt some pain in her private parts and saw that she was bleeding; and that when accused-appellant had left, she gathered strength to put on her clothes and walk to the roadside where she was found by her brother Jessie Guevarra.

Indeed, accused-appellant points to the inconsistency in the testimonies of Josephine and her brother, Jessie, but his counsel never cross-examined Jessie nor required him to explain the supposed inconsistencies. In any event, we cannot consider the same as sufficient to justify disregarding Josephine’s testimony altogether and sustain accused-appellant’s claims. Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood."25 [People v. Perez, G.R. No. 129213, December 2, 1999.] In People v. Arafiles,26 [G.R. No. 128814, February 9, 2000.] we held:

We have ruled that the protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility. Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed. . .

When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.

Third. Finally, accused-appellant’s guilt is established by the fact that he offered to marry Josephine after the incident was reported to the authorities. This was testified to by Josephine,27 [TSN, p. 10, Aug. 8, 1988.] her father, Pablo Guevarra,28 [TSN, pp. 9-11, June 9, 1987.] her mother, Wennie Guevarra,29 [Also referred to as "Weny Guevarra" in the records. TSN, pp-4-7, Aug. 2, 1989.] and by accused-appellant himself.30 [TSN, p. 19, Nov. 15, 1994.] As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.31 [People v. Casao, 220 SCRA 362 (1993); People v. Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 (1991)]

Nor is accused-appellant’s position aided by the fact that, after his offer of marriage was rejected, he left their town and only came back after his co-accused, Minda Dollesin, had been acquitted. His offer of marriage was apparently only an attempt to evade prosecution and clearly makes his leaving town an incident of flight. This is evidence of guilt.32 [See People v. Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000; People v. Orillo, G.R. No. 125896, May 11, 2000.]

The trial court ordered accused-appellant to pay Josephine moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 only. This award must be increased. Currently, moral damages for rape is fixed at P50,000.00.33 [People v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265 (1999)] In addition, accused-appellant must be ordered to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, consistent with the recent rulings of this court.34 [Supra. See People v. Rojas, G.R. No. 125292, April 12, 2000; People v. Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000.]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to Josephine Guevarra.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.