Appellant's motion for reconsideration having been denied, the present appeal was filed with this Court. In its Manifestation[6] dated February 6, 2015, appellant informed this Court that he is adopting all the defenses and arguments he raised in the Brief for the AccusedAppellant filed with the CA. Appellant assigns this lone error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. According to appellant, had it been true that private complainant AAA felt violated since she was thirteen (13) years old, then she would not have slept side by side with the appellant; thus, such behavior is not in accordance with one who is a victim of sexual abuse. He further questions private complainant's delay in reporting the incident. He also claims that there is illmotive on the part of the private complainant in filing the rape charge against him. Under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the RPC, the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation. In this case, all the elements of the crime charged in the Information are present. Private complainant AAA positively identified appellant as the perpetrator. Her clear and straightforward testimony, corroborated by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was already in a non-virginal state after she was raped. When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.[7]As ruled by the CA: Private complainant AAA positively identified accused-appellant Mayola as her abuser. She did not waver on the material points of her testimony and maintained the same even on cross-examination. Moreover, private complainant AAA's testimony is corroborated by the result of her medical examination which showed the presence of "old hymenal laceration at five (5) o'clock and seven (7) o'clock position" in her private part. This finding is consistent with her declaration that accused-appellant Mayola had been raping her since she was thirteen (13) years old. It is also worthy to note that when private complainant AAA relived her ordeal at the witness stand, she broke down in tears several times. This only bolsters her credibility. Her emotional anguish is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the crying of a victim during her testimony is evidence of the truth of the rape charges, for the display of such emotion indicates the trauma she suffered while under the evil control of her tormentor.[8] Anent the second element, it was duly proven and uncontested that appellant is the father of private complainant. When the offender is the victim's father, as in this