xxx Q A Did you not prevent Mervin from taking off your panty? No sir. Q A Why did you not wrestle out? I am afraid because of the knife. xxx Q A After he took off his brief, what did accused do, tell the Court? He laid himself on top of me. Q A After he laid himself on top of you, what else did he do? He inserted his penis [in]to my vagina. xxx Q A Was he successful in inserting his penis [in]to your vagina? Yes sir. Q A After inserting his penis [in]to your vagina, what else did accused do to his penis? He kept on pumping himself, meaning making a going and out movement. Q A You mean he was making in and out movement of (sic) your vagina? Yes, sir. Q A Was he able to reach ejaculation? Blood. Q A You mean blood came out? Yes, sir. Q A From where? From my vagina.12 Appellant questions the weighty trust placed by the trial court on the singular and uncorroborated testimony of AAA as the basis for his conviction. On this point, we would like to remind appellant that it is a fundamental principle in jurisprudence involving rape that the accused may be convicted based solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.13 It is likewise jurisprudentially settled that when a woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.14 Thus, in this jurisdiction, the fate of the accused in a rape case, ultimately and oftentimes, hinges on the credibility of the victim’s testimony.