10068058baleros vs people (g.r. no. 138033. february 22, 2006) stages of execution. ft

7/28/2019 10068058Baleros vs People (G.R. No. 138033. February 22, 2006) Stages of Execution. Ft

1/13

Baleros vs People (G.R. No. 138033. February 22, 2006) stages of execution. ft

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 138033 February 22, 2006

RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

GARCIA, J .:

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. assails and seeks the reversalof the January 13, 1999 decision1of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 17271 asreiterated in its March 31, 1999 resolution2denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.

The assailed decision affirmed an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 91-101642 finding petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. y David (CHITO)guilty of attempted rape.3

The accusatory portion of the information4dated December 17, 1991 charging petitioner withattempted rape reads as follow:

That about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in Manila and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by forcefully covering the face ofMartina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, did thenand there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commenced the commission of rape by lying on top ofher with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts ofexecution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, saidacts being committed against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

Upon arraignment on February 5, 1992, petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded "NotGuilty."5Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

To prove its case, the prosecution presented thirteen (13) witnesses. Among them were privatecomplainant Martina Lourdes Albano (Malou), and her classmates, Joseph Bernard Africa, Rommel

Montes, Renato Alagadan and Christian Alcala. Their testimonies, as narrated in some detail in thedecision of the CA, established the following facts:

Like most of the tenants of the Celestial Marie Building (hereafter "Building", ) along A.H. LacsonStreet, Sampaloc, Manila, MALOU, occupying Room 307 with her maid, Marvilou Bebania(Marvilou), was a medical student of the University of Sto. Tomas [UST] in 1991.

In the evening of December 12, inside Unit 307, MALOU retired at around 10:30. Outside, right infront of her bedroom door, her maid, Marvilou, slept on a folding bed.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt1


2/13

Early morning of the following day, MALOU was awakened by the smell of chemical on a piece ofcloth pressed on her face. She struggled but could not move. Somebody was pinning her down onthe bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to scream for help but the hands covering her mouth withcloth wet with chemicals were very tight (TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 33). Still, MALOU continued fightingoff her attacker by kicking him until at last her right hand got free. With this the opportunitypresented itself when she was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she then squeezed.

The man let her go and MALOU went straight to the bedroom door and roused Marvilou. xxx. Overthe intercom, MALOU told S/G Ferolin that: "may pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako" (Ibid.,p. 8). Who it was she did not, however, know. The only thing she had made out during their strugglewas the feel ofher attackers clothes and weight. His upper garment was of cotton material whilethat at the lower portion felt smooth and satin-like (Ibid, p. 17). He was wearing a t-shirt andshorts Original Records, p. 355).

To Room 310 of the Building where her classmates Christian Alcala, Bernard Baptista, LutgardoAcosta and Rommel Montes were staying, MALOU then proceeded to seek help. xxx.

It was then when MALOU saw her bed topsy-turvy. Her nightdress was stained with blue (TSN,

July 5, 1993, pp. 13-14). Aside from the window with grills which she had originally left opened,another window inside her bedroom was now open. Her attacker had fled from her room goingthrough the left bedroom window (Ibid, Answers to Question number 5; Id), the one without iron grillswhich leads to Room 306 of the Building (TSN, July 5, 1993, p.6).

xxx xxx xxx

Further, MALOU testified that her relation with CHITO, who was her classmate , was friendly untila week prior to the attack. CHITO confided his feelings for her, telling her: "Gusto kita, mahal kita"(TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 22) and she rejected him. . (TSN, July 5, 1993, p. 22).

Meanwhile, according to S/G Ferolin, while he was on duty, CHITO arrived at the Building at 1:30 inthe early morning of December 13, 1991, wearing a white t-shirt with a marking on the front ofthe T-shirt T M and a Greek letter (sic) and below the quoted letters the word 1946 USTMedicine and Surgery (TSN, October 9, 1992, p. 9) and black shorts with the brand name Adidas(TSN, October 16, 1992, p.7) and requested permission to go up to Room 306. This Unit was beingleased by Ansbert Co and at that time when CHITO was asking permission to enter, only JosephBernard Africa was in the room.

He asked CHITO to produce the required written authorization and when CHITO could not, S/GFerolin initially refused [but later, relented] . S/G Ferolin made the following entry in the securityguards logbook :

"0130H Baleros Renato Jr. is a visitor of Ansbert Co who has not have (sic) a Request letter fromour tenant of Unit #-306 Ansbert, but still I let him inter (sic) for the reason that he will be our tenant

this coming summer break as he said so I let him sign it here

(Sgd.) Baleros Renato Jr."

(Exhibit "A-2")

That CHITO arrived at Room 306 at 1:30 A.M. of December 13, 1991 was corroborated by JosephBernard Africa (Joseph), .


3/13

xxx xxx xxx

Joseph was already inside Room 306 at 9 oclock in the evening of December 12, 1991. xxx by thetime CHITOs knocking on the door woke him up, . He was able to fix the time of CHITOs arrivalat 1:30 A.M. because he glanced at the alarm clock beside the bed when he was awakened by theknock at the door .

Joseph noticed that CHITO was wearing dark-colored shorts and white T-shirt (Ibid., p. 23) when helet the latter in. . It was at around 3 oclock in the morning of December 13, 1991 when he woke upagain later to the sound of knocking at the door, this time, by Bernard Baptista (Bernard), .

xxx. With Bernard, Joseph then went to MALOUs room and thereat was shown by Bernard the openwindow through which the intruder supposedly passed.

xxx xxx xxx

Later, at about 6 to 6:30 in the morning of December 13, 1991, Joseph was finally able to talk toCHITO . He mentioned to the latter that something had happened and that they were not being

allowed to get out of the building. Joseph also told CHITO to follow him to Room 310.

CHITO did just that. He followed after Joseph to Unit 310, carrying his gray bag. xxx. None was inRoom 310 so Joseph went to their yet another classmate, Renato Alagadan at Room 401 to see ifthe others were there. xxx.

People from the CIS came by before 8 oclock that same morning . They likewise invited CHITOand Joseph to go with them to Camp Crame where the two (2) were questioned .

An occupant of Room 310 Christian Alcala (Christian) recalled in Court that in the afternoon ofDecember 13, 1991, after their 3:30 class, he and his roommates, Bernard Baptista and Lutgardo

Acosta (Gary) were called to the Building and were asked by the CIS people to look for anything not

belonging to them in their Unit. While they were outside Room 310 talking with the authorities,Rommel Montes (Loyloy), another roommate of his, went inside to search the Unit. Loyloy found(TSN, January 12, 1993, p. 6) a gray "Khumbella" bag cloth type (Ibid, pp. 44-45) from inside theirunit which they did not know was there and surrender the same to the investigators. When he sawthe gray bag, Christian knew right away that it belonged to CHITO (Ibid, p. 55) as he had seen thelatter usually bringing it to school inside the classroom (Ibid, p. 45).

In their presence, the CIS opened the bag and pulled out its contents, among others, a white t-shirtwith a Taunu (sic) Sigma Phi sign (Ibid, p. 7), a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief , three (3)white T-shirts, an underwear, and socks (Ibid).

Christian recognized the t-shirt (Exhibit "D-4"), the Adidas short pants (Exhibit "D-5"), and thehandkerchief (Exhibit "D-3) to be CHITOs because CHITO had lent the very same one to him .The t-shirt with CHITOs fraternity symbol, CHITO used to wear on weekends, and the handkerchiefhe saw CHITO used at least once in December.

That CHITO left his bag inside Room 310 in the morning of December 13, 1991, was what consistedmainly of Renato R. Alagadans testimony.

xxx xxx xxx.


4/13

The colored gray bag had a handle and a strap, was elongated to about 11/4 feet and appeared tobe full but was closed with a zipper when Renato saw it then (Ibid, pp. 19-20). At that time Christian,Gary, Bernard, and Renato went back to Room 310 at around 3 to 4 oclock that afternoon alongwith some CIS agents, they saw the bag at the same place inside the bedroom where Renato hadseen CHITO leave it. Not until later that night at past 9 oclock in Camp Crame, however, did Renatoknow what the contents of the bag were.

xxx xxx xxx.

The forensic Chemist, Leslie Chambers, of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in CampCrame, having acted in response to the written request of PNP Superintendent Lucas M.Managuelod dated December 13, 1991, (Exhibit "C"; Original Records, p. 109.) conducted laboratoryexamination on the specimen collated and submitted. Her Chemistry Report No. C-487-91 (Exhibit"E"; Ibid., p. 112) reads in part, thus:

"SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

xxx xxx xxx:

1) One (1) small white plastic bag marked UNIMART with the following:

xxx xxx xxx

Exh C One (1) night dress colored salmon pink.

2) One (1) small white pl astic bag marked JONAS with the following:

Exh. D One (1) printed handkerchief.

Exh. E One (1) white T-shirt marked TMZI.

Exh. F One (1) black short (sic) marked ADIDAS.

PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:

To determine the presence of volatime (sic), non-volatile and/or metallic poison on the above statedspecimens.

FINDINGS:

Toxicological examination conducted on the above stated specimens gave the following results:

Exhs. C and D POSITIVE to the test for chloroform, a volatile poison.

Exhs. A, B, E and F are insufficient for further analysis.

CONCLUSION:

Exhs. C and D contain chloroform, a volatile poison."6(Words in bracket added)
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt6


5/13

For its part, the defense presented, as its main witness, the petitioner himself. He denied committingthe crime imputed to him or making at any time amorous advances on Malou. Unfolding a differentversion of the incident, the defense sought to establish the following, as culled from the samedecision of the appellate court:

In December of 1991, CHITO was a medical student of (UST). With Robert Chan and Alberto

Leonardo, he was likewise a member of the Tau Sigma Phi Fraternity . MALOU, , was known tohim being also a medical student at the UST at the time.

From Room 306 of the Celestial Marie Building , CHITO, wearing the prescribed barong tagalogover dark pants and leather shoes, arrived at their Fraternity house located at Dos Castillas,Sampaloc, Manila at about 7 oclock in the evening of December 12, 1991. He was included in theentourage of some fifty (50) fraternity members scheduled for a Christmas gathering at the house oftheir senior fraternity brother, Dr. Jose Duran, at No. 3 John Street, North Greenhills, San Juan. xxx.

The party was conducted at the garden beside [the] swimming pool . Soon after, the four (4)presidential nominees of the Fraternity, CHITO included, were being dunked one by one into thepool. xxx.

xxx CHITO had anticipated his turn and was thus wearing his t-shirt and long pants when he wasdunked. Perla Duran, , offered each dry clothes to change into and CHITO put on the white t-shirt with the Fraternitys symbol and a pair of black shorts with stripes. xxx .

Again riding on Albertos car and wearing "barong tagalog over a white t-shirt with the symbol TAUSigma Phi, black short pants with stripe, socks and shoes" (TSN, April 25, 1994, p. 15), CHITO leftthe party with Robert Chan and Alberto at more or less past 1 A.M. of December 13, 1991 andproceeded to the Building which they reached at about 1:30 A.M. (Ibid., p. 19). He had left his graytraveling bag containing "white t-shirt, sando, underwear, socks, and toothbrush (Ibid., pp. 17-18) atroom 306 in the afternoon of the previous day .

At the gate of the Building, CHITO knocked and , S/G Ferolin, looking at his watch, approached.Because of this, CHITO also looked at his own watch and saw that the time was 1:30 (Ibid., p. 26).S/G Ferolin initially refused CHITO entry . xxx.

S/G Ferolin called Unit 306 . xxx. When S/G Ferolin finally let him in, already about ten (10)minutes had lapsed since CHITO first arrived (Ibid., p. 25).

CHITO went up the floor, found the key left for him by Joseph behind the opened jalousie windowand for five (5) minutes vainly tried to open the door until Rommel Montes, approached him andeven commented: "Okey ang suot mo ha, di mo mabuksan ang pinto (Ibid., pp. 26-29). Rommel triedto open the door of Unit 306 but was likewise unsuccessful. CHITO then decided to just call out toJoseph while knocking at the door.

It took another (5) minutes of calling out and knocking before Joseph, , at last answered the door.Telling him, "Ikaw na ang bahala diyan" Joseph immediately turned his back on CHITO and wentinside the bedroom. CHITO , changed to a thinner shirt and went to bed. He still had on the sameshort pants given by Perla Duran from the fraternity party (TSN, June 16, 1994, p. 20).

At 6 oclock in the morning of December 13, 1991, CHITO woke up . He was already in his schooluniform when, around 6:30 A.M, Joseph came to the room not yet dressed up. He asked the latterwhy this was so and, without elaborating on it, Joseph told him that something had happened and to

just go to Room 310 which CHITO did.


6/13

At Room 310, CHITO was told by Rommel Montes that somebody, whom MALOU was not able toidentify, went to the room of MALOU and tried to rape her (TSN, April 25, 1994, p. 36). xxx.

Joseph told him that the security guard was not letting anybody out of the Building . When two (2)CIS men came to the unit asking for Renato Baleros, CHITO presented himself. CongressmanRodolfo B. Albano, father ofMALOU, then asked him for the key to Room 306.

xxx xxx xxx

The CIS men looked inside the bedroom and on the windows. Joseph was told to dress up and thetwo (2) of them, CHITO and Joseph, were brought to Camp Crame.

When they arrived at Camp Crame , Col. Managuelod asked Joseph inside his room and talked tohim for 30 minutes. xxx. No one interviewed CHITO to ask his side.

xxx xxx xxx

Both CHITO and Joseph were taken to Prosecutor Abesamis who later instructed them to undergo

physical examination at the Camp Crame Hospital .. At the hospital, CHITO and Joseph werephysically examined by a certain Dr. de Guzman who told them to strip .

xxx xxx xxx

CHITO had left his gray bag containing, among others, the black striped short pants lent to him byPerla Duran (Exhibit "8-A", Original Records, p. 345), inside Room 310 at more/less 6:30 to 7 oclockin the morning of December 13, 1991. The next time that he saw it was between 8 to 9 P.M. whenhe and Joseph were brought before Fiscal Abesamis for inquest. One of the CIS agents had taken itthere and it was not opened up in his presence but the contents of the bag were already laid out onthe table of Fiscal Abesamis who, however, made no effort to ask CHITO if the items thereat werehis.

The black Adidas short pants purportedly found in the bag, CHITO denied putting in his gray bagwhich he had left at Room 306 in the early evening of December 12, 1991 before going to thefraternity house. He likewise disavowed placing said black Adidas short pants in his gray bag whenhe returned to the apartment at past 1:00 oclock in the early morning of December 13, 1991 (TSN,June 16, 1994, p. 24), nor when he dressed up at about 6 oclock in the morning to go to school andbrought his gray bag to Room 310 (Ibid. 25). In fact, at any time on December 13, 1991, he was notaware that his gray bag ever contained any black short Adidas pants (Ibid). He only found out for thefirst time that the black Adidas short pants was alluded to be among the items inside his gray baglate in the afternoon, when he was in Camp Crame.

Also taking the witness stand for the defense were petitioners fraternity brothers, Alberto Leonardoand Robert Chan, who both testified being with CHITO in the December 12, 1991 party held in Dr.Durans place at Greenhills, riding on the same car going to and coming from the party and droppingthe petitioner off the Celestial Marie building after the party. Both were one in saying that CHITO waswearing a barong tagalog, with t-shirt inside, with short pants and leather shoes at the time theyparted after the party.7Rommel Montes, a tenant of Room 310 of the said building, also testifiedseeing CHITO between the hours of 1:30 and 2:00 A.M. of December 13, 1991 trying to open thedoor of Room 306 while clad in dark short pants and white barong tagalog.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt7


7/13

On the other hand, Perla Duran confirmed lending the petitioner the pair of short pants with stripesafter the dunking party held in her fathers house.8Presented as defense expert witness wasCarmelita Vargas, a forensic chemistry instructor whose actual demonstration in open court showedthat chloroform, being volatile, evaporates in thirty (30) seconds without tearing nor staining the clothon which it is applied.9

On December 14, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision10

convicting petitioner of attempted rapeand accordingly sentencing him, thus:

WHEREFORE, under cool reflection and prescinding from the foregoing, the Court finds the accusedRenato D. Baleros, Jr., alias "Chito", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rapeas principal and as charged in the information and hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonmentranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correctional, asMinimum to TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as Maximum, with all the accessory penaltiesprovided by law, and for the accused to pay the offended party Martina Lourdes T. Albano, the sumof P50,000.00 by way of Moral and exemplary damages, plus reasonable Attorneys fees ofP30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, petitioner went to the CA whereat his appellate recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CRNo. 17271.

As stated at the threshold hereof, the CA, in its assailed Decision dated January 13, 1999, affirmedthe trial courts judgment of conviction, to wit:

WHEREFORE, finding no basis in fact and in law to deviate from the findings of the court a quo, thedecision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.11

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied by the CA in its equally assailedresolution of March 31, 1999.12

Petitioner is now with this Court, on the contention that the CA erred -

1. In not finding that it is improbable for petitioner to have committed the attempted rapeimputed to him, absent sufficient, competent and convincing evidence to prove the offensecharged.

2. In convicting petitioner of attempted rape on the basis merely of circumstantial evidencesince the prosecution failed to satisfy all the requisites for conviction based thereon.

3. In not finding that the circumstances it relied on to convict the petitioner are unreliable,inconclusive and contradictory.

4. In not finding that proof of motive is miserably wanting in his case.

5. In awarding damages in favor of the complainant despite the fact that the award wasimproper and unjustified absent any evidence to prove the same.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt8


8/13

6. In failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional presumption of innocence and thatmoral certainty has not been met, hence, he should be acquitted on the ground that theoffense charged against him has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Otherwise stated, the basic issue in this case turns on the question on whether or not the CA erredin affirming the ruling of the RTC finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of

attempted rape.

After a careful review of the facts and evidence on record in the light of applicable jurisprudence, theCourt is disposed to rule for petitioners acquittal, but not necessarily because there is no directevidence pointing to him as the intruder holding a chemical-soaked cloth who pinned Malou down onthe bed in the early morning of December 13, 1991.

Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity and not per se to that of being aneyewitness to the very act of commission of the crime. There are two types of positive identification.

A witness may identify a suspect or accused as the offender as an eyewitness to the very act of thecommission of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may, however, be instances where,although a witness may not have actually witnessed the very act of commission of a crime, he may

still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, forinstance, the latter is the person or one of the persons last seen with the victim immediately beforeand right after the commission of the crime. This is the second type of positive identification, whichforms part of circumstantial evidence.13In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resortto adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secretand under condition where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted under allcircumstances, the prosecution of vicious felons who committed heinous crimes in secret orsecluded places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to prove.14

Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides the conditions when circumstantial evidencemay be sufficient for conviction. The provision reads:

Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction

if

a) There is more than one circumstance;

b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyondreasonable doubt.

In the present case, the positive identification of the petitioner forms part of circumstantial evidence,which, when taken together with the other pieces of evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leadsto only fair and reasonable conclusion, which is that petitioner was the intruder in question.

We quote with approval the CAs finding of the circumstantial evidence that led to the identity of thepetitioner as such intruder:

Chito was in the Building when the attack on MALOU took place. He had access to the room ofMALOU as Room 307 where he slept the night over had a window which allowed ingress and egressto Room 306 where MALOU stayed. Not only the Building security guard, S/G Ferolin, but JosephBernard Africa as well confirmed that CHITO was wearing a black "Adidas" shorts and fraternity T-
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt13


9/13

shirt when he arrived at the Building/Unit 307 at 1:30 in the morning of December 13, 1991. Thoughit was dark during their struggle, MALOU had made out the feel of her intruders apparel to besomething made of cotton material on top and shorts that felt satin-smooth on the bottom.

From CHITOs bag which was found inside Room 310 at the very spot where witness RenatoAlagadan saw CHITO leave it, were discovered the most incriminating evidence: the handkerchief

stained with blue and wet with some kind of chemicals; a black "Adidas" satin short pants; and awhite 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 theseitems and on the beddings and clothes worn by MALOU during the incident revealed that thehandkerchief and MALOUs night dress both contained chloroform, a volatile poison which causesfirst degree burn exactly like what MALOU sustained on that part of her face where the chemical-soaked cloth had been pressed.

This brings the Court to the issue on whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution hasestablished beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape.

The Solicitor General maintained that petitioner, by pressing on Malous face the piece of cloth

soaked in chemical while holding her body tightly under the weight of his own, had commenced theperformance of an act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape the victim. It is argued thatpetitioners actuation thus described is an overt act contemplated under the law, for there can not beany other logical conclusion other than that the petitioner intended to ravish Malou after heattempted to put her to an induced sleep. The Solicitor General, echoing what the CA said, adds thatif petitioners intention was otherwise, he would not have lain on top of the victim.15

Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by a man who has carnalknowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using forceor intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) Whenthe woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. Under Article 6, in relation to theaforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender commences thecommission 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 ownspontaneous desistance.16

Expounding on the nature of an attempted felony, the Court, speaking thru Justice Claro M. Recto inPeople vs. Lamahang,17stated that "the attempt which the Penal Code punishes is that which has alogical connection to a particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning of the execution ofthe offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation."

Absent the unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect, aswhere the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain, meaning the nature of the actin relation to its objective is ambiguous, then what obtains is an attempt to commit an indeterminateoffense, which is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code.18

There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge in thepresent case. The next question that thus comes to the fore is whether or not the act of thepetitioner, i.e., the pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overtact of rape.1avvphil.net

Overt or external act has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention tocommit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to itscomplete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt15


10/13

by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concreteoffense.19

Harmonizing the above definition to the facts of this case, it would be too strained to construepetitioner's act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou which would induce her tosleep as an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen into rape. As it were, petitioner did not

commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape Malou. Itcannot be overemphasized that petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on his partto undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For what reason petitioner wanted thecomplainant unconscious, if that was really his immediate intention, is anybodys guess. The CAmaintained that if the petitioner had no intention to rape, he would not have lain on top of thecomplainant. Plodding on, the appellate court even anticipated the next step that the petitioner wouldhave taken if the victim had been rendered unconscious. Wrote the CA:

The shedding of the clothes, both of the attacker and his victim, will have to come later. His sexualorgan is not yet exposed because his intended victim is still struggling. Where the intended victim isan educated woman already mature in age, it is very unlikely that a rapist would be in his nakedglory before even starting his attack on her. He has to make her lose her guard first, or as in thiscase, her unconsciousness.20

At bottom then, the appellate court indulges in plain speculation, a practice disfavored under the ruleon evidence in criminal cases. For, mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proofrequired to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.21

In Perez vs. Court of Appeals,22the 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, forthere to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexualorgan to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneousdesistance, the penetration, however, slight, is not completed.

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioners 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 anddetestable acts, do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that petitioner actuallycommenced to force his penis into the complainants sexual organ. xxx.

Likewise in People vs. Pancho,23the Court held:

xxx, appellant was merely holding complainants feet when his Tito Onio arrived at the alleged locuscriminis. Thus, it would be stretching to the extreme our credulity if we were to conclude that mere

holding of the feet is attempted rape.

Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not saying that petitioner is innocent, under the premises, ofany wrongdoing whatsoever. The information filed against petitioner contained an allegation that heforcefully covered the face of Malou with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical. And during the trial,Malou testified about the pressing against her face of the chemical-soaked cloth and havingstruggled after petitioner held her tightly and pinned her down. Verily, while the series of actscommitted by the petitioner do not determine attempted rape, as earlier discussed, they constituteunjust vexation punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt19


11/13

Revised Penal Code. In the context of the constitutional provision assuring an accused of a crimethe right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,24it cannot be said that petitionerwas kept in the dark of the inculpatory acts for which he was proceeded against. To be sure, theinformation against petitioner contains sufficient details to enable him to make his defense. As aptlyobserved by then Justice Ramon C. Aquino, there is no need to allege malice, restraint orcompulsion 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 anyhuman conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustlyannoy or irritate an innocent person.25The paramount question is whether the offenders act causesannoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it isdirected.26That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what sheperceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyondcavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of petitioner.

The penalty for coercion falling under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised PenalCode is arresto menor or a fine ranging from P5.00 to P200.00 or both.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional TrialCourt of Manila, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTINGpetitioner Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. Petitioner, however, is adjudgedGUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fineof P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

CANCIO C. GARCIAAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNOAssociate Justice

Chairperson

( On Leave )ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ*

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONAAsscociate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAAssociate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case wasassigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S .PUNOAssociate JusticeChairperson, Second Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fntahttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fntahttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fntahttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#fnt24


12/13

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman's Attestation, it ishereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before thecase was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANChief Justice

Footnotes

*On Leave.

1Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by AssociateJustices Romeo A. Brawner (ret.) and Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (ret.); Rollo, pp. 198-237.

2Id., p. 273.

3Id., pp. 120-155.

4Original Records, pp. 1-3.

5Id., p. 42.

6Rollo, pp. 201-212.

7TSN, December 15, 1993, pp. 18-19; TSN, December 20, 1993, pp. 23-24.

8

TSN, January 17, 1994, pp. 7-10.9TSN, January 17, 1994, p. 24.

10Rollo, pp. 120-155.

11See Note #1, supra.

12See Note #2, supra.

13People vs. Cubcubin, Jr., 413 Phil. 249 (2001), citing People vs. Gallarde, 382 Phil. 718(2000).

14People vs. Sevileno, 425 SCRA 247 (2004), citing People vs. Navarro, 407 SCRA 221(2003).

15Comment, pp. 20-21; Rollo, pp. 302-303.

16People vs. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912 (2000).

1761 Phil. 703, 705 (1935).
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rntahttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rntahttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt7http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt6http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt5http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt4http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt3http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnta


13/13

18Ibid.

19Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 1998 Edition, p. 91.

20Rollo, pp. 222-223.

21People vs. Canlas, et al., 423 Phil. 665 (2001).

22431 Phil. 786 (2002).

23416 SCRA 506 (2003).

24Sec. 14(2), Art. III.

25Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1997 ed., Vol. III, p. 81.

26Ibid., citing People vs. Lilian Gozum, CA 54 O.G. 7409; People vs. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369[1934].
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/feb2006/gr_138033_2006.html#rnt18

10068058baleros vs people (g.r. no. 138033. february 22, 2006) stages of execution. ft

Documents