1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; IN THE PROSECUTION OF RAPE CASES; VICTIM NEED NOT TESTIFY THAT SHE SAW THE SEX ORGAN OF THE ACCUSED. — The appellant contends that from the facts proved in the trial court, there was no rape but only acts of lasciviousness. The victim did not categorically state that she saw the sex organ of the appellant nor that the said organ of the appellant entered the vagina. This contention of appellant has no merit as he relied only on a portion of the testimony of the victim when the entire testimony of the victim should have been considered. The records reveal that on direct examination, the victim testified that she saw the sex organ of the appellant. The victim further testified that at one point, the appellant made the "up and down" movement whereupon she felt the private part of the appellant touch her vagina and thereafter felt pain in the area. There was no showing that the accused-appellant inserted his fingers inside the private part of the victim. As against the testimony of the victim that the private part of the accused-appellant touched her vagina, his allegation that he committed only acts of lasciviousness, cannot prevail. It is not essential that the victim in a crime of rape should testify that she saw the penis of the appellant before she was raped. This is the least of the concern of a victim, especially an innocent child. It is also difficult to expect a child of tender age (about 6 1/2 years old when she testified) to remember after one year whether or not she saw the penis of the appellant. It is unfair to expect her testimony to be perfect in all respects, without any mistakes or inconsistencies.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURAL BEHAVIOR OF THE VICTIM AFTER THE ALLEGED CRIME WILL NOT NEGATE THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — The appellant also contends that the natural behavior of the victim soon after the alleged rape, negates the commission of rape. It is allegedly unimaginable that a small five-year old child, whose hymen was completely lacerated due to alleged penetration of the male organ on her private part, would not have suffered shock, serious bleeding, extreme pain as well as loss of consciousness as a consequence of the assault. It is not inconceivable that despite the rape, the victim was still acted normally because the penetration was not attained by force and besides, the penetration was only slight. Since there was no full or complete penetration of the vagina it is not expected that the pain would be unbearable. As found by the trial court, "she (victim) saw the penis of accused but it did not go inside her private parts, but it touched her vagina so she felt pain." The fact that there was no full penetration was confirmed by the medical finding of the physician that the labia of the vagina is open but the vagina itself hardly admits one small finger and there was only a slight bleeding caused by the total laceration of the hymen at 5 o’clock.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTRODUCTION OF THE MALE ORGAN INTO THE LABIA OF THE PUDENDUM MUST BE PROVED. — It is true that, standing alone, a physician’s finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated, does not prove that she was raped. A physician is presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show only that the latter had lost her virginity (People v. Opena, G.R. L-34954, Feb. 20, 1981, 102 SCRA 755). However, when the physician’s finding of penetration is corroborated by the testimony of the victim that the appellant’s private part touched her vagina, it ii sufficient to establish the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. It is even more difficult to ascertain in this case whether or not the crime charged was committed because there was no witness to the rape except the victim herself, a five-year old child. However, We are convinced that although the victim was only about six and a half years old at the time her testimony was taken and that there were inconsistencies in some points in her testimony, she positively stated that she felt the penis of the appellant on her vagina. It can then be concluded that there was penetration, though incomplete, and it was sufficient to prove carnal knowledge of a child under twelve years of age. In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant’s private parts is not necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entrance, or at least, the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved (see People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 82121, December 29, 1989, People v. Basas, G.R. No. L-4801922, June 29, 1984).