G.R. No. 57455 - De Luna vs. Abrigo

The case involves Jose Tayaba, a 17-year-old defendant, accused of attempted rape.
The incident occurred at night when the offended party, a married woman, was alone in her house.
The accused entered the house between 9 and 10 o’clock while the offended party was asleep.

Upon entering the house, the accused was observed in undergarments.
He either raised or attempted to raise the flap of the offended party’s dress while she slept.
As the offended party awoke and cried for help, the accused threatened her with a knife held in his right hand while grasping her right shoulder.
The confrontation led to slight injuries on the offended party, evidenced partly by torn clothing near the neck.

The offended party’s cries attracted the attention of her neighbor, Pedro Martinez, who arrived promptly on the scene.
Martinez’s intervention caused the accused to hastily leave the house before his actions could escalate further.
No evidence was presented by the defense in contradiction to the witness accounts and the sequence of events as recorded in the judgment.

The trial court's findings indicated that the evidence testified to the accused raising the dress; however, the offended party’s testimony mentioned that he “tried to raise” it.
The discrepancy in terminology was noted, yet it was held that this difference did not alter the legal qualification of the crime committed.
The court emphasized that for an attempted crime, the overt acts must directly and logically lead to the commission of a specific crime under the law, regardless of minor differences in description.

Whether the discrepancy between “raising the dress” and “trying to raise the dress” was significant enough to affect the judicial qualification of the crime.
Determining if this difference could exonerate the accused from the crime of attempted rape.

Whether the series of actions committed by the accused should be classified as attempted rape or merely as unjust vexation.
The need to distinguish between consummated crimes (unjust vexation) and attempted crimes (attempted rape) based on the intent and the nature of the acts performed.

Whether the overt acts of the accused sufficiently demonstrated the requisite intent and progression towards a consummated act of rape, even though the crime was thwarted.
The applicability of the legal principle that an attempted crime is complete with the commencement of overt acts directly leading to the intended offense.