G.R. No. 1157. February 06, 1905

The defendant here was charged with the crime of attempted rape.

The evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did,
on or about the 7th day of October, 1902, in the city of Manila,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with force and intimidation,
attempt to lie with one Felisa Angeles, against her will.

The evidence shows clearly that the defendant was prevented from
committing the crime of rape by reason of the appearance of a third
person brought to the scene of the crime by the outcries of the said
Felisa Angeles.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of attempted rape, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment (de presidio), to pay the costs, and to suffer the accessory penalties designated by the law.

One is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime who makes a beginning
in the commission of the same directly, by overt act, and who does not
perform all of the acts necessary to constitute the crime by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own voluntary desistance.

The punishment for the crime of rape, as provided for in article 438
of the Penal Code, is that of reclusion temporal.The punishment for an
attempt to commit a crime is two degrees less than that prescribed by
law for the consummated crime. Therefore, the punishment for the crime
of attempted rape is that of prision correccional.

The court below found the existence of the aggravating circumstance
provided for in paragraph 20 of article 10 of the Penal Code, and
imposed a sentence within the maximum grade of prision correccional
in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 81 of the
Penal Code. This case was tried by the Court of First Instance of the
city of Manila in the month of December, 1902. The cause was received
in the Supreme Court on the 2d day of January, 1903. The issue in said
cause in the Supreme Court was not joined, by reason of the fact that
the attorneys for the respective parties did not file their briefs
until the 10th day of August, 1904. The record does not show whether
the defendant has been imprisoned during this extraordinary period or
out on bail.

The attorney appointed to represent the defendant in this court
recommended the confirmation of the sentence of the lower court. The
evidence adduced during the trial of said cause justifies the sentence
imposed by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, and it is
therefore affirmed, with this provision: That if the said
defendant has been imprisoned during the pendency of the appeal in this
case, one-half the period of imprisonment which he has actually
suffered shall be applied to the penalty herein imposed. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.