What is the case law on the doctrine of reasonable doubt when the evidence supporting defendant's rape conviction is self-contradicting rather than conflicting?

In short, this was not the usual and ordinary situation where the evidence on the pivotal issue was in conflict. The evidence whether defendant raped the victim in June 2007 is self-contradicting rather than conflicting. As such, the evidence supporting defendant's conviction (the victim's unsworn out-of-court statement and direct examination testimony) was rebutted by clear, positive, and uncontradicted evidence of such a nature that it is not subject to doubt in the minds of reasonable men (the victim's repudiation of her unsworn out-of-court statement and direct examination testimony). It therefore fails to meet the necessary standard that it inspire confidence, be of solid value, and be of ponderable legal significance. Stated another way, the evidence supporting that defendant raped the victim in June 2007 is fantastic and does violence to reason because the victim who gave that evidence unequivocally, repeatedly repudiated that evidence. The evidence supporting defendant's conviction of count 13 is therefore "so lacking in substantiality as to truth or credibility that it falls far short of that quantum of verity, reasonableness and substantiality required by law in criminal cases to satisfy the reason and judgment of those bound to act conscientiously upon it as to the existence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. It must, therefore, be regarded as amounting to no evidence at all, as a matter of law, sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and to meet the burden resting upon the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Casillas, supra, 60 Cal.App.2d at p. 794.) To affirm, "we would be compelled to emasculate completely the doctrine of reasonable doubt." (Ibid.)