RICHARD RICALDE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. No. 211002 January 21, 2015

 TOPIC: Rape. Stages.

RATIONALE:

Men can also become victims of rape through sexual assault, and this can involve penile insertion.

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."

 

FACTS:

1. At around 2:00 am, Ricalde, 31 y/o, allegedly inserted his penis into XXX’s, 10 y/o boy, anal orifice. XXX ran to his mother’s room and told her about what happened. Armed with knife for self-defense, his mother confronted Ricalde about it. He remained silent. She asked him to leave. They reported it to Sta. Rosa Police Station.

2. Accused denied the alleged rape through sexual assault.

3. RTC found him guilty beyond  reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual assault. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum. Accused is ordered to pay XXX the sums of 50,000.00 as moral damages and 50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

4. CA affirmed but with modification on award of damages. Ricalde was ordered to pay P30,000 for indemnity  and P30,000 for moral damages with interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

5. Hence, this appeal. Ricalde argues reasonable doubt in his favor due to the ff.:

a) medico-legal found “no physical signs or external signs of recent trauma in XXX’s anus  or any trace of spermatozoa

b) XXX’s inconsistent testimony raises reasonable doubt on his guilt.

c) XXX testified to have seen him wearing pants, which would make anal coitus risky of injuring the sexual organ or having pubic hair entangled with the zipper. Petitioner submits that the court must consider every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused.

 

ISSUE:

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

 

RULING:

YES. Ricalde is guilty of rape through sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 classified rape as a crime against persons and amended the Revised Penal Code to include Article 266-A on rape through sexual assault:

Article 266–A. Rape; When and How Committed.—Rape is Committed—

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. (Emphasis supplied)

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."

In a long line of cases, this court has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of child victims. Their  youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.  XXX, then only 10 years old, had no reason to concoct lies against petitioner.

In the crime of rape whereby the slightest penetration of the male organ or even its slightest contact with the outer lip or the labia majora of the vagina already consummates the crime, in like manner, if the tongue, in an act of cunnilingus, touches the outer lip of the vagina, the act should also be considered as already consummating the crime of rape through sexual assault, not the crime of acts of lasciviousness. (People v. Bonaagua)

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.

SC Decision: Petitioner’s  conviction is affirmed. He is guilty of rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Anti-Rape Law beyond reasonable doubt, with a modification of penalty.

Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act punishes those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child under 12 years of age, shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape which imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal (12  years, 10  months and 21 days as minimum, 15 years, 6 months and 20 days, as maximum.)

He is also ordered to pay of ₱30,000.00 for civil indemnity and  ₱30,000.00 for  moral damages, both with interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.