Appellant points to the old (1927) ruling in People v. Erinia,19 [50 Phil 998, 1000 (1927).] where the Court held that there being no conclusive evidence of the penetration of the genital organ of the offended party, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and could only be found guilty of frustrated rape. However, later cases have overruled Erinia. We now hold that the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent in our criminal law.20 [People v. Quiñanola and Escuadro, G.R. No. 126148, May, 5, 1999, p.1; People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105, 114-115 (1990).] In abandoning Erinia, the Court declared that the merest touch of the male organ upon the labia of the pudendum, no matter how slight, consummates the rape.21 [People v. Velasco, 73 SCRA 574, 581(1976). People v. Ordonio, 68 SCRA 397, 403-404 (1975); People v. Amores, 58 SCRA 505, 508 (1974); People v. Royeras, 56 SCRA 666, 671 (1974); People v. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259, 270 (1973); People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498, 509 (1971); People v. Obtinalia, 38 SCRA 651, 661 (1971); People v. Jose, 37 SCRA 450, 469 (1971), People v. Selfaison, 110 Phil. 839 (1961); People v. Canastre, 82 Phil., 480, 483 (1948).]

Justice Quisumbing, Second Division, People v. Berico [G.R. No. 117691. March 1, 2000]