BALEROS VS PEOPLE FACTS: -Baleros attempted to rape Martina but was unable to perform all acts of execut ion

by some other cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. -Baleros pleaded 'not guilty' and after the examination of evidences and testimo nies, he was convicted of attempted rape. -Dissatisfied, Baleros appealed to the CA who affirmed the trial court's convict ion. He moved for reconsideration but it was denied. -Baleros contended that CA erred: 1. In not finding that it is improbable for hi m to have committed the attempted rape imputed to him, absent sufficient, compet ent and convincing evidence to prove the offense charged; 2. In convicting petit ioner of attempted rape on the basis merely of circumstantial evidence since the prosecution failed to satisfy all the requisites for conviction based thereon; 6. In failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional presumption of innoc ence and that moral certainty has not been met, hence, he should be acquitted on the ground that the offense charged against him has not been proved beyond reas onable doubt ISSUE: Did the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC in finding Baleros guilty be yond reasonable doubt of the crime attempted rape? HELD: The Solicitor General maintained that Baleros, by pressing on Malou s face the pie ce of cloth soaked in chemical while holding her body tightly under the weight o f his own, had commenced the performance of an act indicative of an intent or at tempt to rape the victim. It is argued that Baleros' actuation thus described is an overt act contemplated under the law, for there can not be any other logical conclusion other than that Baleros intended to ravish Malou after he attempted to put her to an induced sleep. The Solicitor General, echoing what the CA said, adds that if Baleros' intention was otherwise, he would not have lain on top of the victim.