People v. Balesteros (2007)

BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 138033 | January 30, 2007

Justice Garcia

FACTS:

·      December 13, 1991 – Baleros forcefully covered the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects and laid on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge but did not perform all acts of execution.

·      The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC (Manila) adjudging him GUILTY of light coercion and sentenced him to 30 days of arresto menor with a fine of P200.00 and accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.

·      February 22, 2006 –Renato Balesteros, Jr. (petitioner) was acquitted of the crime of attempted rape by the Supreme Court.

·      Baleros is now seeking to reconsider the decision rendered on Feb. 22, 2006 in support of his plea for complete acquittal. (Motion for Partial Reconsideration)

·      Baleros avers that his conviction for light coercion under the Information for rape runs counter to the en banc ruling of the Court in People v. Contreras

- People v. Contreras: The elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime of rape.

·      Baleros argues that the Information does not allege that the complained act of covering the face of the viction with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical used her annoyance, irritation, distress and disturbance.

·      The Court states that Baleros’ reliance to the Contreras case is misplaced; his acts justify conviction for unjust vexation (a form of light coercion).

ISSUE/S:

1.     W/N the actions of Renato Baleros constitute UNJUST VEXATION.

RULING: Motion under consideration is DENIED with finality.

RATIO DECIDENDI

1.     YES.

·      The 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.

·      “Unjust vexation” 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.”

·      In this case: After the incident, Malou (the victim) cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack; the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved that she was disturbed, it not distressed, by the acts of the petitioner.