b. Moral damages P30,000.00 P50,000.00 TOTAL P60,000.00 P100,000.00 All of which must earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of this judgment until fully paid.[15] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA. The CA Ruling In a decision, dated 30 June 2014, the CA affirmed the conviction of accusedappellant but modified the amount of damages awarded. It opined that the court a quo correctly accorded credence to the testimony of BBB after finding her answers to the questions on direct and cross-examination to be intelligible, candid, and unwavering. The CA found no merit in accused-appellant's attempt to discredit BBB's testimony by imputing ill motive against her; that is, that she had charged accused-appellant with rape at the instance of CCC who harbored resentment against him for being the common-law husband of her mother. The appellate court pointed out that during the hearing on 7 June 2011, BBB affirmed that she was executing an affidavit of desistance, but she remained silent when asked if accused-appellant did not actually rape her. It added that BBB's testimony was corroborated by the Medico-Legal Report, dated 5 May 2009, finding that BBB's hymen suffered from incomplete laceration which suggested blunt or penetrating trauma. The CA disposed the case in this wise: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint Decision, dated January 30, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, San Jose City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant Rolando Bagsic is further ordered to pay private complainant BBB the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages in Criminal Case No. 1516-2009-SJC for statutory rape; and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 15152009-SJC for rape by sexual assault, in addition to the other award of damages, all of which are subject to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgement until they are fully paid.[16] Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant adopts the same assignment of error he raised before the appellate court, viz: LONE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Select target paragraph3