Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


PEOPLE NATURE OF THE CASE: Petition for review, seeking the reversal of the appellate courts decision in affirming the RTC conviction of attempted rape beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS: On December 13, at about 1:30 AM, Malou Albano, in her room #307 at Celestial Marie Bldg., Manila, while sleeping, was suddenly awaken by the smell of a piece of cloth pressed on her face. She struggled, but could not move. She was pinned down on her bed by somebody, and held tightly. She wanted to scream but the cloth, wet with chemicals was being pressed on her mouth tightly. She continued to struggle and at last her right hand got free from her attacker. With this, she took the opportunity to grab the sex organ of her attacker and squeezed it. The man let her go and Malou went straight to the bedroom door and aroused Marvilou, her maid, who was sleeping on a folding bed by the front of her bedroom door. Over the intercom, Malou also reported the incident to the security guard on duty. Going back into her room, she found her nightdress stained with some sort of chemicals, her bed tupsy-turvy, and the left window of her bedroom, without grills were left open. Said window leads to Room 306, where her attacker was believed to have fled in that direction. She did not know who her attacker was, the only thing she could remember was the feel of her attackers clothes when she was struggling away from him. His upper garment, according to Malou was of cotton material, and his lower garment was satin like. Malou said, her attacker was wearing t-shirt and shorts. Before the incident, Renato CHITO Baleros Jr. came inside the building at 1:30AM according to the S/G logbook. He was wearing a t-shirt, and a shorts. He came to the building to look for Ansbert Co, but the latter was not there, only his roommate Joseph. Both are occupying Rm. 306 of the same bldg. Chito was permitted to come inside the building by the S/G even though he was not a tenant at that time, and he was not holding a request letter from Ansbert. Chito was friend of Malou, until 1 week prior to the incident. Malou testified that Chito confided his feelings towards her. That he like her and love her. But Malou rejected him. During investigation, a gray bag was found in Rm.310 the following day and was brought to Camp Crame for examination. It was identified as belonging to Chito. Inside the gray bag were t-shirt, 1 adidas shorts, 1 handkerchief. In the PNP crime lab in Camp Crame, it was found out that the chemicals that stained Malous night dress contained chloroform, a volatile poison. In defense, Chito denied committing the crime and making at any time amorous advancement to Malou. Chitos version was that, he came from his Fraternity Christmas Party, where in, during the party, he was dunked in the swimming pool. And he was handed a pair of shorts and a T-shirt to change his wet suit after said incident. On his way to the building he was only wearing shorts and a barong tagalog over his t-shirt. That he proceeded to room 306 to sleep there. That another occupant of the bldg. who knew Chito, saw him entering Rm 306 with a key, however he was unsuccessful in opening the door and so he called out for Joseph who was inside Rm. 306 to open the door for him. Chito further stated that he woke up at 6:30Am on Dec. 13, 1991, got up and dressed when Joseph told him about the incident that took place few hours earlier. Joseph then asked him to go to Rm. 310. After cool reflection and prescinding from the foregoing, the RTC found Renato Chito Baleros, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape. On appeal, the

appellate court affirmed the RTC decision, and denied motion for reconsideration. Chito upheld the case for review and alleged that the appellate court in finding him guilty of attempted rape when there is no sufficient, competent and convincing evidence to prove his offense; In convicting him on the basis of circumstantial evidence; that the circumstances it relied on are unreliable, inconclusive and contradictory; that a proof of motive is really needed in this case; that the award of damages was improper an unjustified without any evidence to prove it; in failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional presumption of innocence and that he should be acquitted on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.