RICHARD RICALDE, Petitioner,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211002 January 21, 2015
PONENTE: Leonen
TOPIC: Rape through sexual assault, gender-free rape, homosexual rape, variance doctrine
FACTS:
On January 30, 2002, at around 2:00 a.m., XXX, then 10 years old, woke up as “he felt pain in his
anus and stomach and something inserted in his anus.” He saw that Ricalde, 31 years old, a distant
relative and textmate of XXX, “fondled his penis.” When Ricalde returned to the sofa, XXX ran toward
his mother’s room to tell her what happened. He also told his mother that Ricalde played with his
sexual organ.
RTC found Ricalde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault. CA affirmed
the conviction but lowered the amount of damages.
ISSUES:
Whether or not XXX’s failure to categorically state that a penis was inserted into his anal orifice, or that
he saw a penis or any object being inserted into his anal orifice fatal.
Whether or not the absence of trauma in XXX’s anal orifice, or any trace of spermatozoa disproves
penile or object penetration.
Whether or not the invocation of “variance doctrine” is proper.
Whether or not the slightest penetration into one’s anus constitutes rape through sexual assault.
HELD: Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as “instrument or object
rape,” “gender-free rape,” or “homosexual rape.” 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.”
First issue: NO
The Court held that a victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal orifice
for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed. In People v. Soria, the Court ruled
that “We find it inconsequential that “AAA” could not specifically identify the particular instrument or
object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something was
inserted into her vagina. To require “AAA” to identify the instrument or object that was inserted into
her vagina would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of due process.”
Second issue: NO
Petitioner’s reliance on the medico-legal’s finding of no recent trauma in XXX’s anal orifice, or
any trace of spermatozoa, lacks merit. The absence of spermatozoa in XXX’s anal orifice does not negate
the possibility of an erection and penetration. This result does not contradict the positive testimony of
XXX that the lower courts found credible, natural, and consistent with human nature.
The Court has explained the merely corroborative character of expert testimony and the
possibility of convictions for rape based on the victim’s credible lone testimony.
Third issue: NO
Fourth issue: YES
XXX testified that he “felt something was inserted into his anus.” The slightest penetration into
one’s sexual organ distinguishes an act of lasciviousness from the crime of rape.
Long line of cases consider a woman’s private organ since most if not all existing jurisprudence
on rape involves a woman victim. Nevertheless, this interpretation can apply by analogy when the
victim is a man in that the slightest penetration to the victim’s anal orifice consummates the crime of
rape through sexual assault.
The gravamen of the crime is the violation of the victim’s dignity. The degree of penetration is
not important. Rape is an “assault on human dignity.”
