Petitioner questions the CA's finding that the crime of attempted rape was committed considering that there is absolutely no showing in this case that petitioner's sexual organ had ever touched the victim's vagina nor any part of her body.30 Petitioner likewise argues that there is no clear, competent, convincing and positive evidence that petitioner touched the vagina of the victim with the intention of forcefully inserting his finger inside. Petitioner directs the Court's attention to the fact that at the time of the alleged incident, AAA was wel1 clothed, her vagina fully covered as she was then wearing a panty and a short pants.31 Thus, the core issue tendered in this petition is whether or not the CA erred in convicting petitioner for the crime of attempted rape on the basis of the evidence thus presented. Our Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. We agree with the CA's ruling that the fact of insertion of petitioner's finger into AAA's sexual organ was not established beyond reasonable doubt to support petitioner's conviction of rape by sexual assault. We also agree with the CA that there was sexual molestation by petitioner's established act of touching AAA's vagina. Be that as it may, the act of touching a female's sexual organ, standing alone, is not equivalent to rape, not even an attempted one.32 At most, therefore, petitioner's act of touching AAA's sexual organ demonstrates his guilt for the crime of acts of lasciviousness, an offense subsumed in the charge of rape by sexual assault.33 Rape, under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997" can be committed in two ways: Article 266-A paragraph 134 refers to rape through sexual intercourse, the central element of which is carnal knowledge which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; and Article 266-A paragraph 235 refers to rape by sexual assault which must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph I.36 The direct examination of AAA and BBB, as well as the clarificatory questions interposed by the RTC, while convincingly prove that there was malicious touching of AAA's sexual organ, nevertheless invite doubts as to whether petitioner indeed inserted his finger inside AAA's vagina. On point is the direct examination of AAA yielding the following: Q: While you were playing text, what happened, if any? A: Tito Egay touched my vagina. Q: What were you wearing during that time? A: Shorts, ma'am. Q: Where did he touch you? A: My vagina, ma'am. Q: Did you say anything when your Tito Egay touched your vagina? A: I swayed off his hands.37 (Emphasis supplied)