What is the standard of review for a sexual assault case involving both direct and circumstantial evidence?

relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 460.) Therefore, the reviewing court will not reverse a judgment for insufficient evidence unless " 'it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." [Citation.]' " (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 370.) This standard of review applies to claims involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87 (Manibusan).)