Baleros, Jr. vs. People

An accused charged with attempted rape may be validly convicted of unjust vexation (light coercion) under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code if the Information contains factual averments constituting the elements of unjust vexation, even if the specific statutory terminology is not used, provided the accused is not deprived of his constitutional right to be informed of the charges.

The case arose from an incident on December 13, 1991, wherein petitioner allegedly attacked Martina Lourdes T. Albano (Malou) by forcefully covering her face with a cloth soaked in chemicals, causing dizziness, and lying on top of her with intent to commit rape. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of Appeals, which had convicted petitioner of attempted rape.

• On December 13, 1991, at approximately 1:50 a.m. in Manila, petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. allegedly attacked Martina Lourdes T. Albano (Malou).
• The petitioner forcefully covered Malou's face with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects.
• He then lay on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge.
• He was unable to perform all acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
• The acts were committed against her will and consent.
• After the incident, Malou cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack.
• Malou filed a case for attempted rape against the petitioner.
• The Information charged petitioner with attempted rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically alleging that he "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 commence the commission of rape by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her."

• Reliance on People v. Contreras: Conviction for unjust vexation under an Information for attempted rape is improper where the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime charged and the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute the elements of unjust vexation.
• The Information for attempted rape does not allege that the act of covering the victim's face caused her annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance.
• Seeks complete acquittal from the charge, arguing that the conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted rape violates the ruling in Contreras.

• The Information for attempted rape in this case, unlike in Contreras, contains averments constituting and justifying conviction for unjust vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The Information specifically alleged that the petitioner "by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects" commenced the commission of rape, which facts constitute unjust vexation.
• The Information satisfied the constitutional right of the petitioner to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• Malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation; 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.
• The victim's crying and filing of the case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed and distressed by the petitioner's acts.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Motion for Partial Reconsideration should be granted to set aside the conviction for light coercion and acquit the petitioner completely.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner can be convicted of unjust vexation under an Information for attempted rape without violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
  • Whether the Information sufficiently alleges the elements of unjust vexation to support a conviction therefor.

• Procedural: The Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. The grounds raised in the motion are mere rehash of arguments already passed upon and found to be without merit in the Decision sought to be reconsidered.
• Substantive:
  • The conviction for light coercion (unjust vexation) under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code is valid despite the Information being for attempted rape.
  • People v. Contreras is distinguishable: In Contreras, the 12 Informations for statutory rape did not contain averments constituting unjust vexation (they merely alleged sexual intercourse with a minor). Here, the Information specifically alleged acts (forcefully covering the face with a chemical-soaked cloth) that constitute unjust vexation.
  • The Information fully apprised the petitioner of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, complying with constitutional requirements.
  • Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion; it includes any human conduct which unjustly annoys or irritates an innocent person.
  • The victim's reaction (crying while relating the incident and filing the case) proved she was disturbed and distressed, satisfying the element of unjust vexation.

• Variance Between Charge and Conviction: An accused may be convicted of an offense different from that charged when the facts alleged in the Information constitute the elements of such offense, provided the accused is not prejudiced in his defense and the conviction is for a lesser offense necessarily included in the crime charged or one that the facts alleged constitute.
• Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation: The constitutional guarantee requires that the Information state facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged, but need not use the exact statutory language; it is sufficient if the facts alleged clearly inform the accused of the charges against him.
• Definition of Unjust Vexation: Under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, unjust vexation is defined as any human conduct which, although not productive of physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person; it does not require allegations or proof of malice, restraint, or compulsion.

• "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."
• "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."
• "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."

• People v. Contreras, G.R. Nos. 137123-24, August 23, 2000, 338 SCRA 622 — Distinguished; held that an accused cannot be convicted of unjust vexation under an Information for statutory rape where the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime charged and the circumstances stated in the information do not constitute the elements of the said crime.

• Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines light coercions and unjust vexation; basis for the petitioner's conviction.
• Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines rape; basis for the original charge of attempted rape.
• Constitutional Right to be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation — Referenced regarding the sufficiency of the Information to inform the accused of the charges.