the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim because delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant."[19] Appellant's contention that it was quite impossible for "AAA" to have attended her afternoon classes after having been sexually abused fails to persuade. It has been consistently ruled that "no standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress and rape victims are no different from them."[20] Neither did the absence of physical injury on "AAA" taint the veracity of her testimony. "Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape."[21] As to appellant's claim that there was no resistance exhibited by "AAA" before and during the incidents since they had an amorous relation, the same cannot be taken in his favor. "Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. x x x Rape through intimidation includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol."[22] In the case at bar, appellant's act of pointing a knife at "AAA" while doing his dastardly acts easily cowed the latter into submission. The "sweetheart theory" claimed by appellant is futile. It was never substantiated by the evidence on record. The only evidence adduced to show such relationship were his testimony and that of his wife. The alleged love letter supposedly written by "AAA" was never presented in court. Thus, other than his self-serving assertion and that of his wife, which were rightly discredited by the trial court, nothing supported his claim that he and "AAA" were indeed lovers. As the Court emphasized in People v. Gito[23] "being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. Being sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act." This Court finds no reason to reverse appellant's conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. FC-00-780. "AAA" categorically testified that on April 10, 2004, the appellant had carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent, viz.: PROS. NEBRES: q- Now, madam witness, will you please tell us where were you on April 10, 2004 at about 12 o'clock noon if you can still recall? a- At xxx Albay.