Baleros v. People, G.R. No. 138033, 22 February 2006
Marviluo or Maluo was a med student in UST staying in Celestial Marie Building. In December
1991, Malou slept around 10:30pm. Around 1:50 am, Malou was awakened by the smell of
chemical on a piece of cloth tightly pressed on her face and struggled and continued fighting off
her attacker until her right hand got free and squeeze the sex organ of the attacker. The attacker
let her go and escaped. Malou asked for help from the security guard and her friends. Malou was
able to recall from the perpetrator was that it was wearing white cotton shirt and dark shoes with
a smooth texture like satin. The next day, white shirt and adidas shorts with handkerchief- all
garments covered in blue stain were retrieved from the Petitioner, who was Chito Baleros, her
classmate in UST Med, who confessed his feelings but got rejected by Malou. Petitioner Baleros
seeks for reversal of the CA affirming his conviction of attempted rape before the Manila RTC.
Issue WON chito is guilty of the crime attempted rape.
The Court ruled No. Although the court does not identify the petitioner to be innocent of the acts
imputed to him, such acts were not substantial enough to convict him of attempted rape. He was
not identified through direct evidence but only from circumstantial identification (that is, from
Maluo’s identification of what the attacker wore and the witness’s testimony as what Baleros
wore that night). Art 355 in relation to art 6 of RPC states that circumstances that shows overt
acts of the perpetrator in committing the crime of rape. For the crime of rape to have been
committed in attempted stage, there must be penetrating the woman’s vagina with his sex organ
but was not able to completely do so due to some reason or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Even the acts of kissing the victim and mashing her breast, the offense
would have not constituted attempted rape absent the accused’s action of penetrating the
victim’s vagina with his sex organ. In this case, the perpetrator was even fully dressed. The court
reversed and set aside the decision affirmed by the CA and Baleros was guilty of unjust vexation
punishable as light coercion under art 287 of RPC
Handkerchief with chloroform. Accused is only liable for coercion, specifically unjust vexation.
Because the act committed by Chito Baleros would only indicate that his intention is to annoy,
harass or unduly vex his victim. There was no overt act that would indicate that the accused
intended to rape the victim. He might kill or harm the victim, which is an indeterminate offense,
wherein the intention of the accused is not clear. The SC applied the rule of Lenity, when in doubt,
rule for the accused. Acts of the accused is susceptible to many interpretations, so the case should
be resolved in his favor. He is only liable for unjust vexation.
Act of placing a cloth in the face of the victim is an indeterminate offense because it can be
construed to various interpretations, which should be ruled in the favor of the accused. So the SC
ruled that the accused here was only liable for light coercion, specifically unjust vexation.
What is unjust vexation - to cause annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the
mind of the person to whom it was directed