What is the test for establishing a aider and abettor liability in a sexual assault case?

"To decide whether the evidence is sufficient to support a jury verdict, 'a reviewing court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 453-454.) '"In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence.'" (People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 423.) '"A reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the jury's verdict.'" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)

An aider and abettor is one who acts "'with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.'" (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161.) '"Establishing aider and abettor liability "requires proof in three distinct areas: (a) the direct perpetrator's actus reus-a crime committed by the direct perpetrator, (b) the aider and abettor's mens rea-knowledge of the direct perpetrator's unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends, and (c) the aider and abettor's actus reus-conduct

Page 9