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

In the morning of Dec. 13, 1991, Renato Baleros alias Chito was in the Building/Unit 307 situated in Manila. Chito slept the night over in Room 307 where he had access to Room 306 where Martina Lourdes T. Albino nicknamed Malou stayed. There was a window which allowed him ingress and egress to Room 307. Chito was wearing a black "Adidas" shorts and fraternity T-shirt when he arrived at Building/Unit 307.

Although it was dark during the struggle, Malou had made out the feel of the intruder's apparel to be something made of cotton material on top and shorts that felt satin-smooth on the bottom.

From Chito's bag which was found inside Room 310 at the very spot where witness Renato Alagadan 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 a white fraternity T-shirt, also stained with blue.
Another witness, Christian Alcala, identified these garments as belonging to Chito. In a related development, 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 chemical-soaked cloth had been pressed.

Chito was accused of the crime of attempted rape in an information dated Dec. 17, 1991, which reads in part:

That about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter on 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.

On Dec. 14, 1994, the Regional Trial Court convicted Chito of the crime of attempted rape.

Not contented with the decision, Chito appealed to the Court of Appeals. On Jan. 13, 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trail Court.

Still not contented with the decision of the Court of Appeals, Chito appealed to the Supreme Court.

What was the decision of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court acquitted Chito of the crime of attempted rape, but convicted him of the crime of unjust vexation.

Verily, while the series of acts committed by the accused do not determine attempted rape, they constitute unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.

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.

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 was directed.

The fact that Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be sexual attack and that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of Chito.

But the Supreme Court did not believe that the act of Chito was sexually motivated. The High Tribunal disregarded the following opinion of the Court of Appeals: The shedding of the clothes, both of the attacker and the victim, will have to come later.

His sexual organ is not yet exposed because his intended victim is still struggling. Where the intended victim is an educated woman already mature in age, it is very unlikely that a rapist would be in his naked glory before even starting his attack on her. He has to make her lose her guard first, or as in this case, her unconsciousness.

In disregarding the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said:
"At bottom then, the appellate court indulges in plain speculation, a practice disfavored under the rule on evidence in criminal cases. For, mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt." (Renato Baleros, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138033 (Feb. 22, 2006).

* * * * *

For comments and reactions, send mail to Atty. Jorge D. Cabalit, Cabalit Law Office, 74 Belderol Street, Tagbilaran City or send e-mail to: viewpoints@boholchronicle.com