The appellant cannot rely on the foregoing cases. He was sufficiently informed of the crime he was accused of. This is clear from the defense that he mounted, i.e., that the victim is his sweetheart and that they treated each other as spouses. In short, Tuando was not denied of his constitutional right and was given every opportunity to answer the accusation against him. Now, the merits. Tuando assails that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of qualified rape. He finds fault in the decision of the trial court and Court of Appeals in its reliance mainly on the testimony of AAA and on the alleged weakness of the defense evidence. We disagree. Under Article 266 (A) (1) of the Revised Penal Code,21 rape is committed through the following acts: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: "a) Through force, threat, or intimidation; chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry "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. The rape is qualified under paragraph 1, Article 266-B of the same code if the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.22 In this case, We find that the prosecution was able to prove that Tuando had sexual intercourse with AAA, the then 13 year old daughter of his common-law wife, against her will. The prosecution was able to present the evidence to support conviction for qualified rape: that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim under 18 years of age at the time of rape; (2) said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force, when he boxed her hand while inserting his penis into AAA's private organ, (b) through the threat of killing AAA's family and (c) through intimidation being the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. The concurrence of both the minority of the victim, as proven by her birth certificate,23 and her relationship with her offender, qualified the rape raising the penalty to death. In People v. Floro Barcela24 it is essential, as in this case, that both circumstances must be alleged in the criminal complaint or information and proven as the crime itself.25 cralawred We find credibility with AAA's narration that she was raped by Tuando. It was when the victim's senses were weakened by dizziness that the accused laid her on top of the bed. He undressed the victim, kissed her and inserted his penis inside the victim's private