Q: And after he brought down his pants and his brief, what did Noel Bejim do next? A: He tried to insert his penis [into] my vagina. Q: Did you feel his penis [inside] your vagina? A: Yes, sir. Q: And was he able to insert his penis into your vagina? A: Sir, he just brushed it. xxxx Q: And what did you feel, if any, when he was brushing his penis [on] your vagina? A: It was painful, sir. xxxx Q: So after rubbing his penis into your vagina, what did he do next? A: When he saw my cousins, he immediately got up, stood up. xxxx Q: And when he stood up, what did he do next? A: He fixed his pants and his brief and he ran away.[27] The foregoing revelations of "AAA'' and "BBB" show that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not conclusively establish the element of carnal knowledge. In the aforementioned cases, there is no categorical proof of entrance or introduction of appellant's male organ into the labia of the pudendum of "AAA.'' Neither is there evidence to show that appellant made an attempt to penetrate "AAA's" vagina. The prosecution’s evidence lacks definite details regarding penile penetration. On the contrary, "AAA'' and "BBB" stated that appellant merely "brushed or rubbed" his penis on their respective private organs. While "BBB" testified that appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina, she nevertheless failed to state for the record that there was the slightest penetration into it. What is clear on record is that appellant merely brushed it. The Court held in People v. Butiong[28] that "the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the