Does the evidence support a rape conviction because the prosecution failed to prove the victim's vagina was penetrated?

Appellant also argues that the evidence does not support the rape conviction because the prosecution failed to prove the victim's vagina was penetrated. As in every sufficiency-of-the-evidence case, we "consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.)