Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: First Division

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Martin
    The petitioner sought reconsideration of the court's decision convicting him of light coercion instead of acquitting him of attempted rape. The court denied the motion, finding that unlike the case cited by petitioner, the information against petitioner contained allegations constituting unjust vexation. Specifically, it alleged he covered the victim's face with a chemically soaked cloth, distinguishing it from the insufficient informations in the cited case which only alleged statutory rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: First Division

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Martin
    40 views2 pages
    The petitioner sought reconsideration of the court's decision convicting him of light coercion instead of acquitting him of attempted rape. The court denied the motion, finding that unlike the case cited by petitioner, the information against petitioner contained allegations constituting unjust vexation. Specifically, it alleged he covered the victim's face with a chemically soaked cloth, distinguishing it from the insufficient informations in the cited case which only alleged statutory rape.

    Original Description:

    sfhfd

    Original Title

    117076-2007-Baleros_Jr._v._People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner sought reconsideration of the court's decision convicting him of light coercion instead of acquitting him of attempted rape. The court denied the motion, finding that unlike the case cited by petitioner, the information against petitioner contained allegations constituting unjust vexation. Specifically, it alleged he covered the victim's face with a chemically soaked cloth, distinguishing it from the insufficient informations in the cited case which only alleged statutory rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views2 pages

    Petitioner Vs Vs Respondent: First Division

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Martin
    The petitioner sought reconsideration of the court's decision convicting him of light coercion instead of acquitting him of attempted rape. The court denied the motion, finding that unlike the case cited by petitioner, the information against petitioner contained allegations constituting unjust vexation. Specifically, it alleged he covered the victim's face with a chemically soaked cloth, distinguishing it from the insufficient informations in the cited case which only alleged statutory rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 138033. January 30, 2007.]

    RENATO BALEROS, JR. , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,


    respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    GARCIA , J : p

    In this Motion for Partial Reconsideration, 1 petitioner-movant Renato Baleros, Jr., through
    counsel, seeks reconsideration of our Decision of February 22, 2006, acquitting him of the
    crime of attempted rape, thereby reversing an earlier decision of the Court of Appeals, but
    adjudging him guilty of light coercion and sentencing him to 30 days of arresto menor and
    to pay a fine of P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.
    It is petitioner's submission that his conviction for light coercion under an Information for
    attempted rape, runs counter to the en banc ruling of the Court in People v. Contreras 2
    where the Court held:
    The Solicitor General contends that accused-appellant should be held liable for
    unjust vexation under Art. 287(2) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the
    elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in
    Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, the circumstances stated in the
    information do not constitute the elements of the said crime. Accused-appellant,
    therefore, cannot be convicted of unjust vexation.

    Petitioner's reliance on Contreras is misplaced. There, the 12 identical Informations 3


    substantially alleged:
    The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses IAN CONTRERAS Y EROY, based on
    the sworn declaration of one ANGELIC OCRENAS y CONTRERAS assisted by
    NELENE DIAZ y OCRENAS of the crime of "STATUTORY RAPE IN RELATION TO
    R.A. 7610," committed as follows:

    That between the period from May to June 1996 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
    within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with
    lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
    intercourse with one ANGELIC OCRENAS y CONTRERAS, age 6 years old.

    Contrary to law.

    Unlike the 12 separate Informations in Contreras, the indicting Information for attempted
    rape against the petitioner in the instant case contains averments constituting and thus
    justifying his conviction for unjust vexation, a form of light coercion, under Article 287 of
    the Revised Penal Code. Here, the Information reads:
    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 of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a
    piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, did then and there
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
    willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commenced the commission of rape 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. (Italics ours.) DaScCH

    Contrary to law.

    The aforequoted Information states all the facts and ingredients that fully apprised the
    petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, in compliance with his
    constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.
    Petitioner argues, however, that the Information, as quoted above, does not allege that the
    complained act of covering the face of the victim (Malou) with a piece of cloth soaked in
    chemical caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and disturbance. We wish to
    stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust
    vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the
    reason that the 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. 4 As pointed out in the Decision sought to be reconsidered:
    The paramount question [in a prosecution for unjust vexation] is whether the
    offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the
    mind of the person to whom it is directed. 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 the petitioner.

    For being a mere rehash of those already passed upon and found to be without merit in the
    Decision sought to be reconsidered, the other grounds relied upon by the petitioner in his
    Motion for Partial Reconsideration in support of his plea for a complete acquittal need not
    be belabored anew.
    WHEREFORE, the motion under consideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
    SO ORDERED.
    Puno, C.J., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
    Footnotes

    1. Rollo, pp. 374-399.


    2. G.R. Nos. 137123-24, August 23, 2000, 338 SCRA 622.

    3. All the 12 Informations read substantially the same, except for the names of the persons
    who executed the different sworn declarations and the persons who assisted them. CHcIAS

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

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like