ricalde vs. people of the philippines

7/25/2019 Ricalde vs. People of the Philippines

1/21

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 211002 January 21, 2015

RICHARD RICALDE,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

Even en can becoe victis of rape.

!efore us is a criinal case for rape throu"h se#ual assault coitted a"ainst a $%&'ear&old bo'.(ccused Richard Ricalde )Ricalde* +as char"ed +ith rape as described under the second para"raphof Section --&( of the Revised Penal Code, coitted /b 0' an' person +ho, under an' of thecircustances entioned in para"raph $ hereof, shall coit an act of se#ual assault b' insertin"his penis into another person1s outh or anal orifice, or an' instruent or ob2ect, into the "enital oranal orifice of another person.$
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt1


2/21

3his is a Petition for Revie+assailin" the Court of (ppeals4 (u"ust 5, %$6 Decision6affirin"Ricalde4s conviction for rape throu"h se#ual assault and 7anuar' $8, %$9 Resolution9den'in"

reconsideration.

3he Provincial Prosecutor of !i:an, ;a"una filed an Inforation char"in" Ricalde of rape throu"hse#ual assault>> and his other e#ecuted their s+orn stateents at the Sta. Rosa policestation, leadin" to the criinal coplaint filed a"ainst Ricalde.8

Ricalde denied the accusations.-

=e testified that he et >>> durin" the %%$ to+n fiesta of Calaca,!atan"as and learned that >>>4s other is the cousin of his cousin (rlan Ricalde.A=e and >>>becae te#tates, and >>> invited hi to his house. 5On 7anuar' 6%, %%, >>>4s other picedhi up to sleep at their house.=e slept at $%


4/21

3he Re"ional 3rial Court in its Decision6dated 7une %, %$$ found Ricalde "uilt' be'ondreasonable doubt of rape throu"h se#ual assault>>4s0 anus,6Aor an' trace of
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt37http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt32http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt33http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt34http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt35http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt36http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt37


5/21

speratoFoa.65=e contends that ph'sical evidence rans hi"h in /the court4s0 hierarch' oftrust+orth' evidence. 6

Second, >>> did not cate"oricall' sa' that a penis +as inserted into his anal orifice, or that he sa+ apenis or an' ob2ect bein" inserted into his anal orifice.9%>>> +as also able to iediatel' push hia+a'.9$3hus, no push and pull oveent happened that +ould e#plain >>>4s alle"ed stoachache.9Petitioner subits that the alle"ed stoach ache +as an attept to a""ravate the char"ea"ainst hi.96

Petitioner ar"ues that >>>4s inconsistent testion' raises reasonable doubt on his "uilt. 99>>>claied that he iediatel' pushed petitioner a+a', but in another instance, he testified as follo+s>>.83hese include the fact that the' +ere te#tates and that petitioner pla'ed +ith >>>4s penis. 86
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt45http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt46http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt52http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt53http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt45http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt46http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt52http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt53


6/21

Petitioner ar"ues that this asturbation could have caused an irritation that >>> istoo aspenetration.89>>> could also have istaen the overreachin" fin"ers as a ale or"an tr'in" toenter his /anus0.88(ssuin" these acts too place, these +ould onl' be considered as acts oflasciviousness.8-

3he People of the Philippines counters that the prosecution proved be'ond reasonable doubt alleleents of the crie char"ed.

3he Coent8Adiscussed that it is neither iprobable nor contrar' to huan e#perience that >>>4sother allo+ed her son to be left alone +ith a stran"er.85Petitioner +as not a coplete stran"er, andshe could not have foreseen such abuse since rape b' se#ual assault or an' for of se#ual abuse

of a bo' b' a "ro+n an is fairl' uncoon in our culture.8

Petitioner4s reliance on the edico&le"al4s findin"s deserves scant consideration.-%3he CoentBuoted People v. Penilla-$in that /a0 edical e#aination of the victi is not indispensable in aprosecution for rape inasuch as the victi4s testion' alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict theaccused of the crie.-In an' case, the edico&le"al testified on the sphincter4s fle#ibilit' and ho+an insertion into the anal orifice +ould not necessaril' cause in2ur'.-6

;astl', the prosecution established all eleents of rape throu"h se#ual assault based on >>>4s clearand cate"orical testion'.-9Petitioner4s defense of ere denial cannot out+ei"h positivetestion'.-8ConseBuentl', petitioner4s contention that the incident onl' aounts to acts oflasciviousness lacs erit.--
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt54http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt54http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt55http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt56http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt57http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt57http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt58http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt59http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt60http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt60http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt61http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt62http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt63http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt64http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt64http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt65http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt65http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt66http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt54http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt55http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt56http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt57http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt58http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt59http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt60http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt61http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt62http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt63http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt64http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt65http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt66


7/21

3he issue before us for resolution is +hether the prosecution proved be'ond reasonable doubtpetitioner Richard Ricalde4s "uilt for the crie of rape throu"h se#ual assault.

@e affir petitioner4s conviction +ith odification on the penalt' iposed.

3he (nti&Rape ;a+ of $A-Aclassified rape as a crie a"ainst persons-5and aended the RevisedPenal Code to include (rticle --&( on rape throu"h se#ual assault>>4s analorifice.A83here +as no sho+in" of ill otive on the part of >>> to falsel' accuse petitioner.A-3heCourt of (ppeals accorded "reat +ei"ht to the trial court4s findin"s and affired petitioner4sconviction.AA

No co"ent reason e#ists for this court to overturn the lo+er courts4 findin"s.

Girst, petitioner4s ar"uent hi"hli"htin" alle"ed inconsistencies in >>>4s testion' fails to convince.

In a lon" line of cases,A5this court has "iven full +ei"ht and credit to the testionies of child victis.3heir /'0outh and iaturit' are "enerall' bad"es of truth and sincerit'.A>>>, then onl' $% 'earsold, had no reason to concoct lies a"ainst petitioner.5%
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt69http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt69http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt70http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt70http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt71http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt72http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt73http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt74http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt74http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt75http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt76http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt76http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt77http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt78http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt78http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt79http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt80http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt69http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt70http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt71http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt72http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt73http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt74http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt75http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt76http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt77http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt78http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt79http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt80


9/21

3his court has also held that /l0ee+a' should be "iven to +itnesses +ho are inors, especiall'+hen the' are relatin" past incidents of abuse.5$

Petitioner contends that >>> did not cate"oricall' sa' that a penis +as inserted into his anal orifice,or that he sa+ a penis or an' ob2ect bein" inserted into his anal orifice.

3his contradicts petitioner4s earlier stateent in his appellant4s brief5that /a0lthou"h it is true that theSupree Court, in a lon" line of cases, did not rule out the possibilit' of rape in cases +here thevicti reained ph'sicall' intact at the tie she or he +as ph'sicall' e#ained, still, it bearsstressin" that in the instant case, the private coplainant testified that the accused&appellant4s penisfull' penetrated his anus.56

3he trial court also Buoted portions of the transcript of >>>4s testion' in that he felt soethin" +asinserted in /his0 anus.59

L< 3hat earl' ornin" of 7anuar' 6$, %%, +hile 'ou +ere sleepin" at 'our house, do 'ourecall an' unusual incident that happened to 'ou

(< ?es sir, I felt soethin" +as inserted in ' anus.

. . . .

L< @hen 'ou said that 'ou felt soethin" +as inserted in 'our anus, +hat did 'ou do
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt81http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt82http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt83http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt84http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt81http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt82http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt83http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt84


10/21

(< I felt that he +as insertin" his penis inside ' anus because I +as even able to hold hispenis. =e +as also pla'in" +ith ' penis.

L< So +hen 'ou said he +as insertin" his penis to 'our anus and he +as even pla'in" +ith'our private part, +ho is this person 'ou are referrin" to as he

(< Richard, sir.58

In People v. Soria,5-this court discussed that a victi need not identif' +hat +as inserted into his orher "enital or anal orifice for the court to find that rape throu"h se#ual assault +as coitted>>4s anal orifice does notne"ate the possibilit' of an erection and penetration. 3his result does not contradict the positivetestion' of >>> that the lo+er courts found credible, natural, and consistent +ith huan nature.

3his court has e#plained the erel' corroborative character of e#pert testion' and the possibilit' ofconvictions for rape based on the victi4s credible lone testion'.55
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt85http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt85http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt86http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt87http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt88http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt88http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt85http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt86http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt87http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt88


11/21

In an' case, the edico&le"al e#plained that his ne"ative findin" of traua in the anal orifice doesnot reove the possibilit' of an insertion considerin" the fle#ibilit' of the sphincter>> +as onl' $% 'ears old +hen the incident happened +as established b' his birthcertificate, and this +as aditted b' the defense.$%-=is a"e of $% 'ears old +as alle"ed in theInforation.$%A3he hi"her penalt' under Republic (ct No. A-$%, as discussed in People v. Chin"h,

applies in this case.

=avin" se# +ith a $%&'ear&old is child abuse and is punished b' a special la+ )Republic (ct No.A-$%*. It is a pro"ression fro the Revised Penal Code to provide "reater protection for children.7ustice Velasco su""ests that this is not so. =e anchors his vie+ on his interpretation that Republic

(ct No. A-$% reBuires a sho+in" that apart fro the actual coerced se#ual act on the $%&'ear&old,the child ust also be e#ploited b' prostitution or b' other se#ual acts. 3his vie+ is inaccurate on"rounds of verba le"is and ratione le"is.

3he first para"raph of (rticle III, Section 8 of Republic (ct No. A-$% clearl' provides thatchildren . . . +ho . . . due to the coercion . . . of an' adult . . . indul"e in se#ual intercourse . . . aredeeed to be children e#ploited in prostitution and other se#ual abuse. 3he label children e#ploitedin . . . other se#ual abuse inheres in a child +ho has been the sub2ect of coercion and se#ualintercourse.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt106http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt107http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt107http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt107http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt106http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt107


18/21

3hus, para"raph )b* refers to a specification onl' as to +ho is liable and the penalt' to be iposed.3he person +ho en"a"es in se#ual intercourse +ith a child alread' coerced is liable.

It does not ae sense for the la+ not to consider rape of a child as child abuse. 3he proposal of7ustice Velasco iplies that there has to be other acts of a se#ual nature other than the rape itselfthat +ill characteriFe rape as child abuse. One count of rape is not enou"h. Child abuse, in his vie+,is not 'et present +ith one count of rape.

3his is a dan"erous calculus +hich borders on 2udicial insensitivit' to the purpose of the la+. If +eadopt his vie+, it +ould aount to our collective official sanction to the idea that a sin"le act of rapeis not debilitatin" to a child. 3hat a sin"le act of rape is not a torentin" eor' that +ill sear into a

child4s eor', frae his or her vie+ of the +orld, rob hi or her of the trust that +ill enable hi orher to have full and diverse eanin"ful interactions +ith other huan bein"s. In ' vie+, a sin"leact of se#ual abuse to a child, b' la+, is alread' reprehensible. Our societ' has e#pressed that thisis conduct +hich should be punishable. 3he purpose and te#t of the la+ alread' punish that sin"leact as child abuse.

Rape is rape. Rape of a child is clearl', definitel', and universall' child abuse.

7ustice Velasco further observes that the ri"ht to due process of the accused +ill be violated should

+e ipose the penalt' under Republic (ct No. A-$%. I disa"ree.

3he Inforation +as clear about the facts constitutive of the offense. 3he facts constitutive of theoffense +ill su""est the crie punishable b' la+. 3he principle is that i"norantia le"is non e#cusat.


19/21

@ith the facts clearl' laid out in the Inforation, the la+ +hich punishes the offense should alread'be clear and the accused put on notice of the char"es a"ainst hi.

(dditionall', there is no ar"uent that the accused +as not represented b' counsel. Clear fro therecords is the entr' and active participation of his la+'er up to and includin" this appeal.

On the a+ard of daa"es, +e aintain the aount of 6%,%%%.%% in favor of >>> as a victi of rapethrou"h se#ual assault, consistent +ith 2urisprudence.$%5

3his court has stated that 2urisprudence fro %%$ up to the present 'ields the inforation that theprevailin" aount a+arded as civil indenit' to victis of siple rape coitted b' eans other

than penile insertion isP6%,%%%.$%

3his stateent considered the prevailin" situation in our 2urisprudence +here victis of rape are all+oen.1wphi1=o+ever, as in this case, en can also becoe victis of rape throu"h se#ual assault, andthis can involve penile insertion.

@=EREGORE, the Court of (ppeals Decision in C(&.R. C.R. No. 6965A dated (u"ust 5, %$6 is(GGIRMED +ith MODIGIC(3ION in that for rape throu"h se#ual assault under (rticle --&(,para"raph , accused&appellant Richard Ricalde is sentenced to suffer the indeterinate penalt' of

t+elve )$* 'ears, ten )$%* onths and t+ent'&one )$* da's of reclusion teporal, as iniu, tofifteen )$8* 'ears, si# )-* onths and t+ent' )%* da's of reclusion teporal, as a#iu. =e isordered to pa' the victi civil indenit' in the aount ofP6%,%%%.%% and oral daa"es lie+ise inthe aount of P6%,%%%.%%, both +ith interest at the le"al rate of -H per annu fro the date offinalit' of this 2ud"ent until full' paid.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt108http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt109http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt108http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_211002_2015.html#fnt109


20/21

SO ORDERED.

MARIC M..F. LEONEN(ssociate 7ustice

@E CONCR

ricalde vs. people of the philippines

Documents