View full case

RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a criminal charge of rape through sexual assault committed against a 10-year-old boy. The accused, Richard Ricalde, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the victim and a medico-legal examiner. According to the victim's testimony, he woke up in the middle of the night feeling pain in his anus and stomach. He saw that Ricalde had fondled his penis. The victim immediately reported the incident to his mother, who confronted Ricalde and asked him to leave. The victim and his mother went to the barangay hall and reported the incident to the police. A medical examination did not find any signs of recent trauma or spermatozoa in the victim's anal orifice. Ricalde denied the accusations and claimed that he and the victim became textmates after meeting at a town fiesta. He asserted that he was invited to the victim's house and slept on the living room sofa while the victim slept on the floor.

The Regional Trial Court found Ricalde guilty of rape through sexual assault, while the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Ricalde filed a petition for his acquittal, arguing reasonable doubt based on the lack of physical evidence, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, and the victim's alleged attempt to aggravate the charge against him.

The prosecution argues that all elements of rape through sexual assault have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They note that the victim testified that the accused inserted his penis into his anal orifice. The defense argues that performing anal coitus while wearing pants with an open zipper should be considered acts of lasciviousness instead of rape. The defense also points out possible homosexual affection between the accused and the victim as evidence supporting a lesser offense.

The victim testified that he felt something was inserted into his anus while he was sleeping at home. He further testified that he felt the accused was inserting his penis into his anus and playing with his private part. The defense argues that the victim's testimony lacked specificity as he could not identify the particular object or instrument that was inserted. However, the court ruled that it is inconsequential for the victim to identify the specific object, as long as something was indeed inserted. The defense also relied on the absence of recent trauma and spermatozoa found in the victim's anal orifice, but the court ruled that these do not negate the possibility of penetration and that medical evidence is merely corroborative and not essential in proving rape through sexual assault.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt petitioner Richard Ricalde's guilt for the crime of rape through sexual assault.

RULING:

  1. The petition is denied. The prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner Richard Ricalde is guilty of the crime of rape through sexual assault. The conviction is affirmed but modified on the penalty imposed. The accused is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months, and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal , as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal , as maximum. He is ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00, both with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rape through Sexual Assault: The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 classifies rape as a crime against persons and includes Article 266-A on rape through sexual assault. The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into another person's genital or anal orifice.

  • Testimony Credibility: Testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit as their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.

  • Medical Evidence: A medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape since the victim's credible testimony alone is sufficient to convict the accused. The flexibility of the sphincter and the absence of recent trauma or spermatozoa do not necessarily contradict the possibility of penetration.

  • Variance Doctrine: When there is a variance between the offense charged and that proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged. However, no variance exists in this case between what was charged and what was proven.

  • Penal Provisions for Child Victims: Republic Act No. 7610 provides for a higher penalty when the victim is a child under the age of 12. The penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under 12 years of age is reclusion temporal in its medium period.

  • Legal Interpretation of Rape: The slightest penetration distinguishes rape from acts of lasciviousness. Rape is an assault on human dignity and is considered child abuse when the victim is a child.

  • Damages: The prevailing amount as civil indemnity to victims of simple rape committed by means other than penile insertion is set at P30,000.00, reflecting the severity of the crime and the inflicted trauma.