Title
Ricalde vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 211002
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2015
Ricalde convicted of raping a 10-year-old boy via anal penetration; despite no physical evidence, the court upheld the charge, citing credible testimony and applying RA 7610 for child abuse.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211002)

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court convicted Ricalde of rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A(2) RPC, finding XXX’s testimony straightforward, consistent, and credible. It sentenced him to prision correccional (minimum four years, two months, one day) to prision mayor (maximum eight years) and awarded ₱50,000 each for moral and civil indemnity.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed guilt but reduced damages to ₱30,000 for civil indemnity and ₱30,000 for moral damages, with six-percent interest from finality of judgment.

Petition for Review and Arguments

Ricalde claimed reasonable doubt due to:
• Lack of medical evidence of trauma or semen
• Alleged inconsistencies in XXX’s testimony about insertion and penetration depth
• Practical difficulty of anal penetration with open-zipper pants
• Argument that the act, if proven, amounted only to acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 RPC and warranted application of the variance doctrine

Supreme Court’s Legal Framework

Under RA 8353’s amendment to Art. 266-A of the IPC, rape through sexual assault occurs when a person, under circumstances in paragraph 1 (e.g., victim under 12), inserts his penis into another’s mouth or anal orifice. 1987 Constitution safeguards apply.

Credibility of Victim’s Testimony

The Court accorded great weight to the boy’s testimony, observing that child-victims’ accounts are generally badges of truth. XXX described feeling insertion, holding Ricalde’s penis, and naming him.

Expert Medical Evidence

The absence of visible anal trauma or spermatozoa does not negate penetration. The medico-legal witness explained sphincter flexibility and rapid healing could mask injury and that penetration can occur without lasting external signs.

Application of the Variance Doctrine

No material variance existed between the Information and proof: both charged and proven offense was rape through sexual assault. Jurisprudence holds that slightest penetration consummates rape, distinguishing it from mere lasciviousness.

Distinction Between Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness

Rape’s gravamen is the non-consensual insertion of the penis into the genital or anal orifice. Any contact beyond an outer contact qualifies as penetration and consummated rape, not lascivious conduct.

Penalty and Governing Law

Victim’s age (10) triggers RA 7610 Sec. 5(b) penalty for se

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.