G.R. No.

138033             February 22, 2006

RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

GARCIA, J.:

FACTS:

On December 13, 1991 in Manila, the above-named accused, by forcefully covering

the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with
dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim by lying on top of her with the intention to have
carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, said acts being
committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice. Upon arraignment
petitioner pleaded "Not Guilty."5

Martina Lourdes Albano (Malou), a medical student of the University of Sto. Tomas,
stayed at Room 307 with her maid Marvilou. On December 12 at 10:30 pm, Malou
slept. Her maid slept on a folding bed right in front of her bedroom door. On December
13, 1991 at 1:00 am, Chito left the fraternity party with Robert Chan and Alberto wearing
a barong tagalog, with t-shirt inside, with short pants with stripes lent by Perla Duran and
leather shoes.On December 13, 1991 at 1:30 am, Chito arrived at the Building wearing a
white t-shirt with fraternity symbols and black shorts with the brand name “Adidas” from a
party. He requested permission from S/G Ferolin to go up to Room 306 leased by
Ansbert Co but at that time only Joseph Bernard Africa was there. Although Chito could
not produce the required written authorization, he let him in because he will be a tenant in
the coming summer break. Joseph was awaken by Chito’s knock so he glanced the
alarm clock and let him. He saw him wearing dark-colored shorts and white T-shirt.

On December 13, 1991 at 1:50 am, Renato Baleros, Jr. y David (Chito) forcefully
covered the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical
with dizzying effects which awakened Malou. She struggled but could not move because
she was tightly held and pinned down on the bed.  She kicked him and got her right hand
free to squeeze his sex organ causing him to let her go. She went for the bedroom door
and woke up Marvilou. She also intercommed S/G Ferolin saying: "may pumasok sa
kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako". Malou proceed to Room 310 where her classmates
Christian Alcala, Bernard Baptista, Lutgardo Acosta and Rommel Montes were staying
and seeked help. She saw her bed in a mess and noticed that her nightdress was stained
with blue. Aside from the window with grills which she had originally left opened, another
window inside her bedroom which leads to Room 306 was now open. On December 13,
1991 at 3:30 pm, Christian and his roommates, Bernard and Lutgardo were asked by the
CIS people to look for anything not belonging to them in their Unit when Rommel Montes
went inside and found a grey bag. Christian knew right away that it belonged to Chito. It
contained white t-shirt with fraternity symbol, a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief ,
3 white T-shirts, an underwear and socks. Chito pleaded NOT Guilty. 13 witnesses
including Malou and her classmates, Joseph Bernard Africa, Rommel Montes, Renato
Alagadan and Christian Alcala. Malou testified that, Chito was her classmate whom he
rejected a week before.

Chito only slept and at about 6 to 6:30, Joseph told him that something had
happened and asked him to follow him to Room 310 carrying his gray bag and since no
one was there they went to Room 401 where Renato Alagadan was. He left his grey bag
at Room 306 the day before. Renato Alagadan discovered the most incriminating
evidence: the handkerchief stained with blue and wet with some kind of chemicals; a
black "Adidas" satin short pants; and a white fraternity T-shirt, also stained with blue. A
different witness, this time, Christian Alcala, identified these garments as belonging to
CHITO. As it turned out, laboratory examination on these items and on the beddings and
clothes worn by MALOU during the incident revealed that the handkerchief and MALOU’s
night dress both contained chloroform, a volatile poison which causes first degree burn
exactly like what MALOU sustained on that part of her face where the chemical-soaked
cloth had been pressed.

On December 14, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision 10 convicting petitioner of
attempted rape. CA further affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of attempted
rape.

Whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth
while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt act of rape.

RULING:

NO. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has
carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances:

(1) By using force or intimidation;

(2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
(3) When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

Under Article 6, in relation to the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is
attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.16

There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of sexual intercourse or carnal

knowledge in the present case.

2. NO. Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.19

Petitioner's act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou which

would induce her to sleep as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into
rape. Petitioner did not commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an intent
or attempt to rape Malou. It cannot be overemphasized that petitioner was fully clothed
and that there was no attempt on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private
part.

Mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the
guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21

In Perez vs. Court of Appeals,22 the Court acquitted therein petitioner of the crime of
attempted rape, pointing out that:
xxx. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the
felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the
act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however, slight, is
not completed.

Petitioner’s act of lying on top of the complainant, embracing and kissing her,
mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ,
while admittedly obscene and detestable acts, do not constitute attempted rape
absent any showing that petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the
complainant’s sexual organ. xxx.

Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner do not determine attempted
rape, as earlier discussed, they constitute unjust vexation punishable as light
coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. In
the context of the constitutional provision assuring an accused of a crime the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,24 it cannot be said that petitioner was
kept in the dark of the inculpatory acts for which he was proceeded against. To be sure,
the information against petitioner contains sufficient details to enable him to make his
defense. As aptly observed by then Justice Ramon C. Aquino, there is no need to allege
malice, restraint or compulsion in an information for unjust vexation. As it were, unjust
vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that
this term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.25 The paramount question is whether the offender’s act causes annoyance,
irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed.26 That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her
classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for
attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts
of petitioner.