(3) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. SO ORDERED.[31] ISSUES I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S TESTIMONY. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.[32] OUR RULING The appeal is without merit. The elements of violation of Art. 266-A of R.A. No. 8353 vis-a-vis the evidence presented by the prosecution The accused-appellant was charged with violation of Art. 266-A of R.A. No. 8353, which pertinently reads: Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. For a successful prosecution of rape, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished: (a) through the use of force and 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.[33] In this case, there was no issue that the accused-appellant was the father of AAA and that she was only 7 years old during the time material to this case, thus, qualifying the rape committed against AAA as one under Art. 266-A(l)(d) of R.A. No. 8353 or statutory rape where the child victim's consent is immaterial because the law presumes that her young age makes her incapable of discerning good from evil. Its elements are as follows: (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.[34] Relatedly, three (3) principles guide the Court in the review of rape cases: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[35] In this case, it was not only AAA's testimony which endured the test of credibility, but so was DDD's whose testimony corroborated her declarations on the witness stand.