make; at the same time, it is a charge that is not hard to lay against another by one with malice in her mind. Because of the private nature of the crime that justifies the acceptance of the lone testimony of a credible victim to convict, it is not easy for the appellant, although innocent, to disprove his guilt. These realities compel the Court to approach with great caution and to scrutinize the statements of a victim on whose sole testimony conviction or acquittal depends. [16] In this case, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of YYY for the crime of qualified rape in Criminal Case No. 10648. Circumstantial evidence prove that YYY raped her daughter The elements of Rape under Article 266-A(l)(a) are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) said carnal knowledge was accomplished through force, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. Rape shall be qualified pursuant to Article 266-B(l) of the RPC if: (a) the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age; and (b) 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.[17] The Court rules that all the elements of the crime of qualified rape have been proven by the prosecution. The age of AAA, only fifteen (15) years old at the time of the first incident, had been proven by her birth certificate, and by her testimony. On the other hand, AAA's relationship with YYY, her father, was established by AAA's testimony and YYY's own admission. While AAA did not provide a direct testimony on the details of the actual incident of rape because she was unconscious at the time of the dastardly act, the prosecution established the circumstantial evidence proving that YYY had sexual intercourse with his own daughter against the latter's will. It is settled that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally left unseen and very often, only the victim is left to testify for herself. However, the accused may still be proven as the culprit ·despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. [18] Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz.: SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Here, there are several circumstantial evidence that would prove the carnal knowledge between AAA and appellant while the former was unconscious. First, AAA consistently testified that appellant hit her in the head, which made her lose consciousness, to wit: Pros. Geron: Q: [AAA], you said last time that when your father hit your head with a broom you lost consciousness, am I correct? A: I lost consciousness, sir.[19] xxxx