rue, in 

People v. Campuhan,26 we explained that the phrase, "the mere touching of the external
genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge," means that the act of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the entry
of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the
pudendum. We further elucidated that:

The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that are visible in
the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the
vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after
puberty, and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the
outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface.
The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while the
inner surface is a thin skin which does not have any hairs but has many sebaceous glands.
Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia minora. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia
majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke
the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape.
Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either
labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only
be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. 27

In the present case, there is sufficient proof to establish that the acts of accused-appellant went
beyond "strafing of the citadel of passion" or "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," as depicted
in the Campuhan case, and progressed into "bombardment of the drawbridge [which] is invasion
enough,"28 there being, in a manner of speaking, a conquest of the fortress of ignition. When the
accused-appellant brutely mounted between Rosilyn’s wide-spread legs, unfetteredly touching,
poking and pressing his penis against her vagina, which in her position would then be naturally wide
open and ready for copulation, it would require no fertile imagination to belie the hypocrisy claimed
by accused-appellant that his penis or that of someone who looked like him, would under the
circumstances merely touch or brush the external genital of Rosilyn. The inevitable contact between
accused-appellant’s penis, and at the very least, the labia of the pudendum of Rosilyn, was
confirmed when she felt pain inside her vagina when the "idiniin" part of accused appellant’s sex
ritual was performed.

The incident on June 18, 1996 was described by Rosilyn as follows: