1. Felix Rait was charged with attempted rape for his actions against a 17-year old minor in 1994. He removed her pants and lay on top of her, but did not complete the rape due to the victim kicking them away.
2. Rait argued he should only be convicted of light coercion based on a previous case, but the court disagreed, finding his actions went beyond mere preparation and clearly showed his intent to rape the victim.
3. Unlike the previous case, Rait's acts of removing the victim's clothes and inserting his finger in her vagina were overt acts directly moving toward the commission of rape. Had the victim not resisted, the logical next step would have been sexual intercourse.
1. Felix Rait was charged with attempted rape for his actions against a 17-year old minor in 1994. He removed her pants and lay on top of her, but did not complete the rape due to the victim kicking them away.
2. Rait argued he should only be convicted of light coercion based on a previous case, but the court disagreed, finding his actions went beyond mere preparation and clearly showed his intent to rape the victim.
3. Unlike the previous case, Rait's acts of removing the victim's clothes and inserting his finger in her vagina were overt acts directly moving toward the commission of rape. Had the victim not resisted, the logical next step would have been sexual intercourse.
1. Felix Rait was charged with attempted rape for his actions against a 17-year old minor in 1994. He removed her pants and lay on top of her, but did not complete the rape due to the victim kicking them away.
2. Rait argued he should only be convicted of light coercion based on a previous case, but the court disagreed, finding his actions went beyond mere preparation and clearly showed his intent to rape the victim.
3. Unlike the previous case, Rait's acts of removing the victim's clothes and inserting his finger in her vagina were overt acts directly moving toward the commission of rape. Had the victim not resisted, the logical next step would have been sexual intercourse.
FACT! On May 26, 1994, Rait and Pitago were charged in an Information, which reads: That on or abot !o"ember 19, 199#, at 2:$$ o%c&oc' in the morning, more or &ess (sic) at !a*areth, +agayan de Oro +ity, Phi&i,,ines and within the -risdiction of this .onorab&e +ort, the abo"e/named accsed, cons,iring, confederating together and mta&&y he&,ing one another, did then and there, wi&f&&y (sic), n&awf&&y and fe&onios&y commence the commission of the crime of Ra,e, direct&y by o"ert acts, on the ,erson of a 011/year/o&d2 minor, 03332, by then and there (sic), with force and against the &atter%s wi&& whi&e she was in a state of into4ication, toching her breasts, remo"ing her ,anty, ho&ding her feet (by 5aniter Pitago) and &ying on to, of her (by 6e&i4 Rait), bt did not ,erform a&& the acts of e4ection which wo&d ,rodce the crime of Ra,e, by reason of some case other than his own s,ontaneos desistance, that in when (sic) offended ,arty was ab&e to 'ic' them and the two ran away7 Petitioner arges that he sho&d be ac8itted of the crime of attem,ted ra,e7 If he is to be fond gi&ty of any offense, he ,ts forward the theory that based on this +ort%s r&ing in 9a&eros, 5r7 "7 Peo,&e, he sho&d be con"icted on&y of n-st "e4ation7 In 9a&eros, accsed was con"icted of attem,ted ra,e7 The +3 sstained the con"iction7 :,on re"iew, this +ort re"ersed the con"iction and fond accsed gi&ty of &ight coercion7 In 9a&ero%s, the act for which the accsed was charge of attem,ted ra,e was that he ,ressed a chemica&/soa'ed c&oth in the moth if the "ictim7 The ;+ r&ed that sch act is not an o"ert act that wi&& &ogica&&y and necessari&y ri,en into ra,e7 There was no ,erformance of any act indicati"e of an intent or attem,t to ra,e the "ictim7 I"E! 1. #$%& 's %( ov)*& %+&, O"ert or e4terna& act has been defined as some ,hysica& acti"ity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a ,artic&ar crime, more than a mere ,&anning or ,re,aration, which if carried ot to its com,&ete termination fo&&owing its natra& corse, withot being frstrated by e4terna& obstac&es nor by the "o&ntary desistance of the ,er,etrator, wi&& &ogica&&y and necessari&y ri,en into a concrete offense7 The raison d%etre for the &aw re8iring a direct o"ert act is that, in a ma-ority of cases, the condct of the accsed consisting mere&y of acts of ,re,aration has ne"er ceased to be e8i"oca&< and this is necessari&y so, irres,ecti"e of his dec&ared intent7 It is that 8a&ity of being e8i"oca& that mst be &ac'ing before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an o"ert act or before any fragment of the crime itse&f has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so &ong as the e8i"oca& 8a&ity remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accsed is7 It is necessary that the o"ert act sho&d ha"e been the &timate ste, towards the consmmation of the design7 It is sfficient if it was the =first or some sbse8ent ste, in a direct mo"ement towards the commission of the offense after the ,re,arations are made7= The act done need not constitte the &ast ,ro4imate one for com,&etion7 It is necessary, howe"er, that the attem,t mst ha"e a casa& re&ation to the intended crime7 In the words of >iada, the o"ert acts mst ha"e an immediate and necessary re&ation to the offense7 2. #$)&$)* &$) -%l)*o.s +%s) s$oul/ %00ly '( &$'s +%s). ?e are not ,ersaded by ,etitioner%s argment7 ;e"era& facts attendant to this case distingish it from 9a&eros, enogh to con"ince s to arri"e at a different conc&sion7 :n&i'e in 9a&eros, the acts of ,etitioner c&ear&y estab&ish his intention to commence the act of ra,e7 Petitioner had a&ready sccessf&&y remo"ed the "ictim%s c&othing and had inserted his finger into her "agina7 It is not em,ty s,ec&ation to conc&de that these acts were ,re,aratory to the act of ra,ing her7 .ad it not been for the "ictim%s strong ,hysica& resistance, ,etitioner%s ne4t ste, wo&d, &ogica&&y, be ha"ing carna& 'now&edge of the "ictim7 The acts are c&ear&y =the first or some sbse8ent ste, in a direct mo"ement towards the commission of the offense after the ,re,arations are made7= :nder 3rtic&e 6, in re&ation to 3rtic&e ##@, of the Re"ised Pena& +ode, ra,e is attem,ted when the offender commences the commission of ra,e direct&y by o"ert acts, and does not ,erform a&& the acts of e4ection which sho&d ,rodce the crime of ra,e by reason of some case or accident other than his own s,ontaneos desistance7