FIRST DIVISION
RENATO BALEROS, JR., G.R. No. 138033
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
R E S O L U T I O N
GARCIA, J.:
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 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.)
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.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 374-399.
[2] G.R. Nos. 137123-24,
[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.
[4] Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1997 ed., Vol. III, p. 81.