pants and with a balisong in his hand, he began kissing the sensitive parts of her body. Then he placed himself on top of her and tried to have sexual intercourse with her. He succeeded in nudging her sex organ with the tip of his penis, but was unable to accomplish penetration, due to the resistance offered by her by struggling and kicking him. Nonetheless, the accused had orgasm and Jessica’s sex organ was smeared with his semen. (Emphasis supplied, p. 2, Decision) Such was the only rape incident where the trial court concluded there was no penetration. On the other hand, the factual basis for the conviction in Criminal Case No. 97-159187 in the body of the trial court’s decision reads: chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw lib rary Anent Criminal Case No. 97-159187, the records further show that in November, 1996, at around 11:00 p.m., Jessica was watching TV while the other siblings were asleep and her mother was away, when accused again made sexual advances to her. She resisted and told accused she might become pregnant, but the accused persisted and threatened to kill her at that very moment if she would not submit to his lust. As in the previous occasions, he again succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the helpless and scared victim. After her defilement, the victim continually cried and the accused tried to calm her down by assuring her that she would not be impregnated, because she has not yet began to have menstruation (p. 3, Decision) Consequently the conviction for frustrated rape should pertain to the incident in April 1994 described in Criminal Case No. 97-159185 and not Criminal Case No. 97-159187 since this case refers to the November 1996 rape incident where the findings of the trial court was that there was carnal knowledge. 20 Moreover, the oversight of the court a quo in interchanging Criminal Case Nos. 97159185 and 97-159187 is further evidenced by the following paragraph found in page four of the trial court decision: chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw lib rary In Criminal Case 97-159185 and 97-159184, the acts of the accused in having carnal knowledge of the victim by intimidation on two separate occasions in [the] early or middle part [of] 1996, and in November of the same year, constitute two separate crimes of qualified rape under R.A. 7659 and the penalty prescribed therefore is death by lethal injection. 21 (Emphasis ours) The rape incidents which occurred in 1996 were designated as Criminal Case Nos. 97159184 and 97-159187, as borne out by the informations filed by the City Prosecutor. 22 Thus, the conviction for frustrated rape should pertain to Criminal Case No. 97159185 and not Criminal Case No. 97-159187. Regarding Criminal Case No. 97-159185 (the April 1994 rape incident), the Court sustains appellant’s contention that there is no such crime as frustrated rape, as we have ruled in a long line of cases. 23 Recently, in People v. Quinanola, 24 we again reiterated the rule: chanrob1e s virtual 1aw l ibra ry 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 v. Orita, the Court has explicitly