People of the Philippines vs Gonzalo Baldogo

G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

Facts:

Accused-appellant Gonzalo Baldogo, a convicted felon serving sentence at the Iwahig

Prison and Penal Farm, was again convicted of murder and kidnapping by the Regional
Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. He was sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of death in the murder case and reclusion perpetua in the kidnapping case. On
automatic review, he averred that he had nothing to do with the death of Jorge Camacho,
the victim, and the kidnapping and detention of Julie Camacho. Appellant claimed that
he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Edgardo Bermas, a fellow
inmate of the penal colony, with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do.

Issue:

Whether Baldogo is guilty of murdering Jorge Camacho and kidnapping and detaining
Julie Camacho.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed Baldogos conviction. The Court rejected his claim that
he was acting under duress when he committed the alleged crimes.

The testimony of Julie, and his inculpatory acts, showed that the latter acted in concert
with Bermas and was himself a principal by direct participation.

The Court also ruled that kidnapping was committed even if Julie was not locked up.

According to Art. 267 of the RPC, Kidnapping and serious illegal detention pertains to
any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

Julie was seized and taken from her house through force and dragged to the mountain.
Since then, she was restrained of her liberty by and kept under the control of appellant
and Bermas. She was prevented from going back home for a period of about six days.
Patently then, Baldogo was guilty of kidnapping and illegally detaining Julie.
RENATO BALEROS, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 138033 January 30, 2007

FACTS: At about 1:50 in the morning or sometime thereafter of 13 December 1991 in

Manila, the accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a
piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, tried to rape the victim 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.

Renato Baleros, Jr. moved for a partial reconsideration of a SC decision acquitting him of
the crime of attempted rape but adjudging him guilty of light coercion. It is Baleros'
submission that his conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted
rape, runs counter to the en banc ruling in People v. Contreras where the Court held: The
SOLGEN contends that Contreras should be held liable for unjust vexation under Art.
287(2) of the RPC. However, the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime
of rape as defined in Art. 335. Moreover, the circumstances stated in the information do
not constitute the elements of the said crime. Contreras, therefore, cannot be convicted of
unjust vexation.

ISSUE: Whether Renato Baleros, Jr. is guilty of unjust vexation.

HELD: Yes. He argues that the Information against him does not allege that the act of
covering the face of the victim with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical caused her
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and disturbance. The SC wish to stress that
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 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 as provided in Art. 287 of
the RPC is whether the offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. That the victim, after the
incident cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack
and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the Baleros.