Criminal Law I

ARTICLE 6 and 7 Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies

BALEROS, JR. VS. PEOPLE 483 SCRA 10Parties Involved

Renato Chito Baleros, Jr. as petitioner People as respondent

Facts

Early morning of Dec. 13, 1991, Malou was awakened by a smell of chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on her face. She
struggled to break free but his attacker was pinning her down, holding her tightly. When her right hand finally got free, she
grabbed and squeezed the sex organ of his attacker. The man let her go, enabling Marilou to seek help from her maid and
classmates living nearby. An investigation was conducted in which the evidences pointed to Chito as the attacker. The RTC
thus found Chito guilty for attempted rape and ordered him to suffer an indeterminate sentence (from prision correctional as
minimum to prision mayor as maximum) and to pay Malou PHP 50,000.Chito made an appeal to the CA only to be denied. He
moved for a reconsideration but to no avail. He thus made an appeal to the SC arguing that:

1. There was not enough evidence to find him guilty of the crime

2.Prosecution failed to satisfy all requisites for conviction

3.Circumstances relied on to convict him were unreliable, inconclusive and contradictory.

4.There was no motive.

5.The awarding of damages to complainant was improper and unjustified

6.In failing to appreciate in his favour the constitutional presumption of innocence and that moral certainty has
not been met, he should be acquittedon the basis that the offense charged has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues

1.Whether the evidence adduced by prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the
crime of attempted rape2.Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape

Held

1.No. The courts decision was merely based on speculations.

2.Yes. SC reversed and modifies the decision of the CA, acquitting Chito of attempted rape. He is adjudged guilty
of light coercion and is ordered to serve 30 days of arresto mayor and pay PHP 200.

Doctrine/Ratio
Art. 335 of the RPC, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman under any of the
following circumstances:1.By using force or intimidation2.When woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious3.When woman is under 12 years of age or demented Art. 6 of the RPC defines attempted
rape when offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The
attempt which RPC punishes is the act that has logical connection to the crime that should it have been
successful, the attempt would lead to the consummation of rape.

However, there was no carnal knowledge in the case. The pressing of chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou did not
necessarily constitute an overt act of rape. Moreover, the petitioner did not commence any act that was indicative of an intent
to rape Malou. The petitioner was fully clothed; there was no attempt to neither undress her nor touch her private part. In the
crime of rape, penetration is an essential requisite. Therefore for an attempted rape, accused must have commenced the act of
penetrating but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration was not completed.
Thus petitioners act of lying on top of her, embracing and kissing her or touching her private part do not constitute rape or
attempted rape.

GEMMA JACINTO vs PEOPLE

G.R. NO. 162540 13July2009 592SCRA26

FACTS: In June 1997, Baby Aquino, handed petitioner -collector of Mega Foam, a post dated checked
worth P10,000 as payment for Babys purchases from Mega Foam International, Inc. The said check was
deposited to the account of Jacqueline Capitles husband-Generoso. Rowena Recablanca, another
employee of Mega Foam, received a phone call from an employee of Land Bank, who was looking for
Generoso to inform Capitle that the BDO check deposited had been dishonored. Thereafter, Joseph
Dyhenga talked to Baby to tell that the BDO Check bounced. However, Baby said that she had already paid
Mega Foam P10,000 cash in August 1997 as replacement for the dishonored check.

Dyhengco filed a compliant with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an
entrapment operation with its agents. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia were arrested. The NBI filed a
criminal case for qualified theft against the two (2) and Jacqueline Capitle.

RTC rendered a decision that Gemma, Anita and Jacqueline GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of QUALIFIED THEFT and each of the sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Five (5) years, Five (5) months
and Eleven (11) days to Six (6) years, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed falls the definition of Impossible Crime.

HELD: Yes, Since the crime of theft is not a continuing offense, petitioners act of receiving the cash
replacement should not be considered as continuation of the Theft.
The requisites of an impossible crime are:

That the Act performed would be an offer against persons or property;

That the act was alone with evil intent; and

That the accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual.

The time that petitioner took a possession of the check meant for Mega Foam, she had performed all the
acts to consummate that crime of theft had it not been impossible of accomplishment in this case.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto is found GUILTY of an
impossible crime and suffer the penalty of Six (6) months of arresto mayor and pay courts.

INTOD V. CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)]

Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room.
However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one.

Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?

Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible
crime an act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which
prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal
tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the
intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the
intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime.

Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law

There is no intention to perform the physical act;

There is a performance of the intended physical act; and

The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.Factual impossibility occurs
when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended
crime.
 Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have
been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in
reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which
can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents
a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And
under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible
crime.