G.R. No. 886: September 9, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. ADRIANO SOLAR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Adriano Solar was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the crime of “attempt to rape” and sentenced to four years and two months of imprisonment. The prosecution’s evidence showed that on the morning of November 15, 1901, Solar entered a house armed with a knife, seized the hands of Juliana Perez, attempted to embrace her, and tried to throw her to the floor near an open window. This occurred in the presence of Aniceta Solar (the accused’s aunt) and Potenciana Salcedo (the complainant’s aunt). The complainant alleged she sustained injuries from the knife, from which she recovered in about a week. The accused, as the sole witness for the defense, testified that he merely ordered Juliana Perez to leave the house due to alleged theft and a plot against him, denying any violence and claiming the charge was made in revenge. He did not present other witnesses to corroborate his story.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adriano Solar committed the crime of “attempt to rape,” specifically by establishing the essential element of intent to have carnal knowledge of the woman against her will.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction. The Court held that while the evidence established an assault, it was insufficient to prove the specific intent required for attempted rape. One essential element of the crime is the intent to have carnal knowledge of a woman against her will and despite her resistance. The prosecution failed to prove this intent beyond a reasonable doubt. No act, word, or deed satisfactorily demonstrated that the accused sought to violate the complainant carnally. The inference of such intent from his physical actions was overcome by the fact that the assault occurred in broad daylight, near an open window, and in the immediate presence of close relatives of both partiescircumstances under which such a crime is not ordinarily committed. Therefore, the evidence did not support a conviction for attempted rape. The judgment was reversed, with costs de oficio.