Ricalde vs people

Facts :

Ricalde, who was then 31 years old, was both a distant relative and a textmate of XXX, who was 10 years
old at the time. XXX invited Ricalde to their house, and after dinner, XXX's mother allowed Ricalde to
spend the night due to the late hour. Ricalde slept on the sofa while XXX slept in the living room. In the
middle of the night, XXX woke up experiencing pain in his anus and stomach, sensing that something
had been inserted into his anus. He witnessed Ricalde touching his penis inappropriately. Disturbed by
the incident, XXX rushed to his mother's room to inform her about what had occurred. He also informed
his mother that Ricalde had engaged in inappropriate contact with his sexual organs.

Dr. Roy Amarillo conducted an examination of XXX and found no recent signs of trauma in his anal
opening. The examination also did not detect any presence of spermatozoa. Ricalde denied the
accusations but was ultimately found guilty of rape through sexual assault. The Court of Appeals upheld
the conviction but made modifications by reducing the amount of damages awarded. Ricalde has filed a
petition seeking his acquittal.

Issue:

Whether or not the slightest penetration into one’s anus constitutes rape through sexual assault.

Held :

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.”
Facts:

The appellant was charged with rape in an Information that stated: On or about February 17, 2010, in
the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused JESSIE
GABRIEL y GAJARDO, using force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally engaged in sexual
intercourse with a 17-year-old minor named "AAA" against her will and without her consent, causing
harm and prejudice to the victim. This is in violation of Article 266-A paragraph 1-a, in relation to the 2nd
paragraph of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353.

During the arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty. A trial took place, and the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) rendered a decision, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as
defined and penalized under Article 266-A (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 8353. The accused filed an appeal, but the Court of Appeals (CA) rejected the appeal, relying on the
RTC's reasoning, particularly emphasizing "AAA's" testimony-in-chief regarding the actual assault on her
person as quoted. The CA's determination that the appellant raped "AAA" essentially echoed the RTC's
conclusion regarding the rape case.

Issue:

Whether or not the victim’s testimony sufficient to convict accused for the crime of rape.

Held :

Yes. In the 1901 case of United States v. Ramos, 1 Phil. 81, this Court had already declared that “when a
woman testifies that she has been raped she says, in effect, that all that is necessary to constitute the
commission of this crime has been committed. It is merely a question then, whether or not this court
accepts her statement.” Jurisprudence has clung with unrelenting grasp to this precept. The trial court’s
assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-a-vis their testimonies ought to be upheld
as a matter of course because of its direct, immediate and firsthand opportunity to observe the
deportment of witnesses as they delivered their testimonies in open court. Thus, the trial court’s
findings bearing on the credibility of witnesses on thesematters are invariably binding and conclusive
upon the appellate court unless of course, there is ashowing that the trial court had overlooked,
misapprehended or misconstrued some fact orcircumstance of weight or substance, or had failed to
accord or assign such fact or circumstanceits due import or significance.