The Court disagrees with the accused-appellant's assertion that AAA's testimony was incredible in that she could have easily shouted for help, or sought the help of her other family members who were sleeping nearby when the incidents happened. Time and again, this Court has ruled that there is no clear-cut standard required, or expected from a rape victim or a victim of acts of lasciviousness, especially when the offender is the victim's own biological father who has a history of being violent, or being irrational, as in the present case.[45] Thus, AAA's failure to shout or call for help cannot be taken against her. Nor can credence be accorded to accused-appellant's claim that AAA filed these cases because she did not agree with his method of disciplining her. No daughter, especially a minor like AAA, would impute a serious crime of rape against her own biological father, unless she was impelled by a desire to vindicate her honor, aware as she is that her action or decision must necessarily subject herself and her family to the burden of trial and public humiliation, if the same were untrue.[46] Absent any proof that the filing of the cases was inspired by any ill-motive, the Court cannot be swayed from giving full credence to the victim's testimony.[47] We sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of qualified rape in relation to RA No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 09-1119. The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented.[48] Moreover, rape is qualified when "the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."[49] A thorough review of the records of the case supports the conclusion that the prosecution had sufficiently established the presence of all the elements of qualified rape. AAA clearly testified that it was her own biological father, the herein accusedappellant, who sexually assaulted her on November 4, 2009, without her consent, while she was still a 17-year old minor. The accused-appellant's paternal relations with AAA and her minority were in fact stipulated upon by the parties during the pre-trial stage.[50] Moreover, AAA's account of the rape was corroborated by Dr. Apin, who testified that his examination revealed that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations.[51] The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed upon the accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua, by virtue of RA No. 9346 which suspended the