Scribd
Upload
40 views1 page

Ricalde Vs People

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Richard Ricalde for rape through sexual assault. While Ricalde argued that there was reasonable doubt in his favor due to variances in the victim's testimony, the Court found no variance between what was charged and proven at trial. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Ricalde raped the victim by inserting something into his anus, which was sufficient to prove rape rather than the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Uploaded by

BoenYator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views1 page

Ricalde Vs People

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Richard Ricalde for rape through sexual assault. While Ricalde argued that there was reasonable doubt in his favor due to variances in the victim's testimony, the Court found no variance between what was charged and proven at trial. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Ricalde raped the victim by inserting something into his anus, which was sufficient to prove rape rather than the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness.

Uploaded by

BoenYator
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ricalde vs.

People

G.R. No. 211002

Facts:

 Accused Richard Ricalde (Ricalde) was charged with rape as described under the second paragraph of
Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code or by Sexual Assault."

RTC found Ricalde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual assault. CA affirmed the
conviction with the modification of lowering the amounts of damages awarded.

Petitioner argues the existence of reasonable doubt in his favor. Thar there are variances to the testimony
of the victim. Petitioner contends that the court should have applied the "variance doctrine" in People v.
Sumingwa, and the court would have found him guilty for the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt petitioner Richard Ricalde’s guilt for the
crime of rape through sexual assault.

Held:

Yes.

Ratio:

In the instant case, no variance exists between what was charged and what was proven during trial. The
prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the crime of rape through sexual assault.

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. 

You might also like