The crime of frustrated rape does not exist in Philippine jurisprudence; any penetration of the female sex organ by the male organ, however slight, including mere entry into the labia or lips of the female organ ("mere touching of the external genitalia"), constitutes consummated rape.

The case arose from the alleged rape of a 15-year-old girl, Catalina Carciller, by two armed men, Agapito Quiñanola and Eduardo Escuadro, in Dumanjug, Cebu, on the night of March 5, 1994. The appellants allegedly accosted the victim and her companions, separated her from them, and took turns sexually assaulting her at gunpoint.

• On the evening of March 5, 1994, 15-year-old Catalina Carciller was resting at a waiting shed with her cousin Rufo Ginto and Richard Diaz after attending a dance in Dumanjug, Cebu.
• Accused Agapito Quiñanola ("Petoy") and Eduardo Escuadro ("Botiquil"), both armed with guns, appeared. Quiñanola claimed they were NPA members.
• Quiñanola focused on Catalina while instructing Escuadro to handle her male companions. Escuadro forced the boys to lie down and urinated on them; they later escaped.
• Quiñanola took Catalina at gunpoint towards a nearby school, threatening to kill her if she resisted or shouted.
• Behind the school, Quiñanola forced Catalina to sit down; when she resisted, he pointed his gun at her. Escuadro returned.
• Quiñanola ordered Escuadro to remove Catalina's denim pants and panty, which he did despite her struggles.
• Quiñanola unzipped his pants, lay on top of Catalina while Escuadro held her legs, and performed push and pull movements; Catalina felt his organ "on the lips of (her) genitalia."
• After Quiñanola finished, Escuadro took his turn, lying on top of Catalina and making push and pull movements; she felt his organ "on the lips of (her) vulva." Quiñanola stood nearby smoking.
• The accused fled afterwards. Catalina, left without her pants and panty, ran home in shock and fear.
• She eventually told her family she was raped but initially withheld the perpetrators' names due to fear.
• The incident was reported to the police. Catalina later identified "Petoy" (Quiñanola) and "Botiquil" (Escuadro) as her assailants. She positively identified Escuadro at the police station.
• A medico-legal examination on March 7, 1994, showed no extragenital injuries but noted a moderately thick, wide, intact hymen, with an orifice admitting a 1.8 cm diameter tube with moderate resistance. The report concluded the orifice was too small for complete penetration by an average-sized adult penis without laceration.
• Catalina testified she knew both accused before the incident; Quiñanola was a policeman known as a "popular maldito," and Escuadro lived nearby and was known as "Batiquil." She stated there was illumination from a flashlight held by the accused and nearby house lights.

• The accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in disregarding inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, particularly between Catalina and Rufo Ginto.
• They contended that Catalina's testimony was clouded with grave inconsistencies and lacked credibility, citing the lack of mud on her T-shirt despite her claim of lying on the ground.
• They asserted that their alibis (Quiñanola claimed to be working at home; Escuadro claimed to be fishing and then drinking with a friend) should have been given weight, especially since corroborated by witnesses.
• They challenged the positive identification made by Catalina, suggesting mistaken identity and pointing to alleged discrepancies between her testimony and her initial affidavit.
• They argued that the testimonies of the police officers regarding the initial report and investigation supported their defense.
• They maintained that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of frustrated rape and imposing a 40-year sentence of reclusion perpetua, arguing the evidence did not establish even frustrated rape, let alone the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court.

• The prosecution (Plaintiff-Appellee) maintained that Catalina Carciller provided a candid, straightforward, and credible account of the rape, consistent with human experience.
• The prosecution argued that minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not detract from the essential truth of the crime and that Catalina's positive identification of the appellants, whom she knew prior to the incident, prevails over their weak alibis.
• The prosecution asserted that discrepancies between an affidavit and court testimony are common and do not necessarily discredit the witness, as affidavits are often incomplete.
• The prosecution contended that the medico-legal finding of an intact hymen does not negate rape, as jurisprudence holds that the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime.
• The prosecution implicitly argued, through the Supreme Court's analysis, that the acts described constituted consummated rape, not merely frustrated rape.

• Whether the trial court erred in finding the testimony of the complaining witness, Catalina Carciller, credible despite alleged inconsistencies and the medico-legal findings.
• Whether the positive identification of the accused-appellants by the victim prevails over their defense of alibi.
• Whether the crime committed, based on the evidence, constitutes consummated rape or frustrated rape.
• Whether the crime of frustrated rape exists under Philippine law.
• Whether the accused-appellants were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the aggravating circumstances considered by the trial court were properly appreciated.

• The Supreme Court found the testimony of the victim, Catalina Carciller, to be candid, straightforward, and credible, deserving of full faith and credit. Minor inconsistencies and the state of her T-shirt upon presentation in court were deemed insufficient to discredit her account.
• The victim's positive identification of the appellants, whom she knew beforehand and recognized during the incident aided by flashlight and ambient light, prevails over their defenses of alibi. Alibi is inherently weak and cannot stand against positive identification, especially since the appellants failed to prove physical impossibility of being at the crime scene.
• The Court reiterated the doctrine established in People v. Orita that the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent. Rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the male organ into the labia or lips of the female organ; perfect penetration or hymenal rupture is not required.
• Based on the victim's testimony that she felt the appellants' sex organs on the lips of her genitalia accompanied by push-and-pull movements, the Court concluded that consummated rape occurred.
• Conspiracy between the appellants was evident from their concerted actions in accosting the victim, separating her, holding her down, and taking turns raping her. Thus, each appellant is liable for both acts of rape.
• The Court modified the trial court's judgment, finding both appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of consummated rape, not frustrated rape.
• The Court found no generic aggravating circumstances were properly alleged or proven. While the use of a deadly weapon and commission by two persons qualify the rape to merit the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 335 (as amended by RA 7659), the absence of aggravating circumstances warrants the imposition of the lesser penalty, reclusion perpetua, for each count.
• The appellants were sentenced to two penalties of reclusion perpetua each and ordered to pay, jointly and severally, P100,000 indemnity ex delictu (P50,000 per count) and P60,000 moral damages.

• Non-existence of Frustrated Rape: Definition: Under the Revised Penal Code, rape is consummated upon the slightest penetration; there is no intermediate stage between attempted (no penetration) and consummated rape. Application: The Court explicitly rejected the trial court's conviction for frustrated rape, citing People v. Orita, and held that the acts described constituted consummated rape. The mention of frustrated rape in statute (Art. 335 regarding homicide committed during attempted/frustrated rape) is considered a "persistent lapse in language" until defined by Congress.
• Slightest Penetration Consummates Rape: Definition: Consummation of rape does not require full penetration, rupture of the hymen, or emission; mere entry into the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis is sufficient. Application: Despite the medico-legal finding of an intact hymen, the victim's testimony that she felt the appellants' organs touch the lips of her vulva/genitalia during push-pull movements was deemed sufficient proof of penetration to establish consummated rape.
• Credibility of Rape Victim's Testimony: Definition: The testimony of a rape victim, if credible, straightforward, and corroborated by circumstances, is sufficient for conviction, especially when there is no motive shown for false imputation. Application: The Court found Catalina's testimony candid and convincing, noting the unlikelihood of a young woman fabricating such a story and enduring the ordeal of trial without genuine cause. Her testimony was given primary weight.
• Positive Identification over Alibi: Definition: The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive, clear, and convincing identification of the accused by a credible witness. Alibi must be supported by proof of physical impossibility for the accused to be at the crime scene. Application: Catalina positively identified appellants whom she knew beforehand. Their alibis were considered weak and failed to establish that it was physically impossible for them to be at the place and time of the crime.
• Ex Parte Affidavits vs. Testimony: Definition: Discrepancies between statements in an ex parte affidavit and testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit the witness, as affidavits are often incomplete or prepared by others. Testimony in court is generally given more weight. Application: Appellants' attempts to discredit Catalina using alleged inconsistencies with her affidavit were dismissed by the Court based on this doctrine.
• Conspiracy: Definition: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the crime. Application: The coordinated actions of Quiñanola and Escuadro (accosting the group, separating the victim, one holding her while the other assaulted) clearly showed a common purpose and unity of design, making both liable as principals for both rapes.
• Aggravating Circumstances (Evaluation): Definition: Circumstances enumerated in the Revised Penal Code that increase the penalty for a crime but must be alleged in the information and proven during trial. Application: The Court rejected the trial court's finding of six aggravating circumstances (deadly weapon, two persons, PNP member, fraud/disguise, nighttime, ignominy), finding some inherent (abuse of strength), some not specifically sought (nighttime), some insufficiently proven (craft/ignominy), and one (PNP member) not alleged in the information. The commission by two persons qualified the crime under Art. 335.

• "In People vs. Orita, this Court has declared that the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent."
• "In the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code, 'carnal knowledge,' unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the man's penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ or, as once so said in a case, by the 'mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act.'"
• "While the evidence may not show full penetration on both occasions of rape, the slightest penetration is enough to consummate the offense... The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape..."
• "There are no half measures or even quarter measures nor is their gravity graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration. The rape is deemed consummated in either case."
• "Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there is no such crime as frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita, the Court has explicitly pronounced: [...relevant Orita quote on non-existence of frustrated rape...]"
• "Until Congress sees it fit to define the term frustrated rape and thereby penalize it, the Court will see its continued usage in the statute book as being merely a persistent lapse in language."

• People v. Orita (184 SCRA 105): Cited as the primary authority establishing that the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent in Philippine jurisprudence.
• People v. Eriñia (50 Phil. 998): Mentioned as a "stray" and implicitly overruled decision that had previously found an offender guilty of frustrated rape. The Court noted this case might have prompted the legislature's confusing inclusion of "frustrated rape" in amendments.
• People v. Escober (281 SCRA 498): Cited for the principle that slightest penetration (vulva penetration) is enough to consummate rape, and an intact hymen does not negate the crime.
• People v. Gabayron (278 SCRA 78): Referenced for the ruling that rupture of the hymen or laceration is not necessary for consummated rape, especially in young victims, and entry into the labia is sufficient.
• People v. Echegaray (327 Phil. 349): Cited for the statement that "a mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda... suffices to constitute the crime of rape."
• People v. Oscar, People v. Hernandez, People v. Royeras, People v. Amores: Cited in the quote from Orita as part of the "long line of cases" establishing that perfect penetration is not essential for consummated rape.
• People v. Tayaba, People v. Rabadan, United States v. Garcia: Cited in the quote from Orita as examples where rape is considered attempted if there is no penetration.
• People vs. Balmoria, People vs. Sta. Ana, People vs. Banguis, People vs. Auxtero, People vs. Fuensalida, People vs. Bajar, People vs. Ramirez, People vs. Timon, People vs. Cabebe, People vs. De la Peña, People vs. Castromero, People vs. Abella, People vs. Tismo, People vs. Castillo, People vs. Villa, People vs. Alfaro, People vs. Garcia, People vs. Prades: Cited generally to support various established doctrines regarding credibility assessment, positive identification vs. alibi, effect of affidavits, elements of rape, conspiracy, and damages.

• Revised Penal Code, Art. 335 (as amended by R.A. No. 7659): Defines how rape is committed (by force/intimidation, victim deprived of reason, victim under 12/demented) and sets the penalty (reclusion perpetua), increasing to reclusion perpetua to death under specified circumstances (use of deadly weapon, by two or more persons, victim under 18 and offender is relative/guardian, etc., committed by AFP/PNP member, etc.). Central provision defining the crime and penalty.
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 14: Enumerates aggravating circumstances. Discussed in relation to the circumstances alleged by the trial court (aid of armed men, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, craft/fraud/disguise, ignominy). Specifically mentioned Art. 14(14) regarding craft, fraud, or disguise.
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 110: Provides for solidary liability among principals, accomplices, and accessories for the civil aspects of the crime. Applied in ordering appellants to pay damages jointly and severally.
• Republic Act No. 7659: The law amending Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing harsher penalties for rape, including the death penalty under certain circumstances. Referenced throughout in discussing the applicable penalties.
• Republic Act No. 2632 and Republic Act No. 4111: Mentioned as previous amendments to Art. 335 that introduced the penalty for attempted or frustrated rape when homicide is committed, which the Court deemed a confusing inclusion given the non-existence of frustrated rape.