G.R. No. 211002, January 21, 2015, RICHARD RICALDE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
“x x x.
In People v. Soria,20 this court discussed 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:
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.21
Second, 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.
This 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.22
In any case, the medico-legal explained that his negative finding of trauma in the anal orifice does not remove the possibility of an insertion considering the flexibility of the sphincter: x x x.
X x x.”
X x x.”
