G.R. No.

125633 December 9, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO ALFANTA y ALO, accused-appellant.

Accused-Appellant Rolando Alfanta is convicted of the crime of rape with two aggravating circumstance of Ignominy
and Nighttime, and sentenced with the supreme penalty of death.

FACTS

On the night of 26 August 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, accused appellant assaulted Mrs. Nenita Fernandez,
who was then sleeping at her friends house, pulled her by the hand outside the house, punched her in the chest and jaw
and ordered her to climb the fence and into the garage inside the premises of the adjacent compound. There he ordered
her to take of her clothes, forced her legs apart and inserted his male organ inside her female organ. After inserting the
man's penis to her vagina, she was told to lie face down. She complied, thereafter, the man inserted his penis into her
anus. After that, she was told to turn around face up. After turning around face up, the man inserted his fingers in and
out into her private part. During all this event, the accused used a bolo and a knife to intimidate her, though these were
not included in the complaint. Upon opportunity, the victim was able to take hold of the knife and then the bolo used
them to retaliate and escape.

Upon review of the case by the Supreme Court, the accused contented that the trial court erred in taking into
consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy.

ISSUE

Whether or not the act of the defendant by inserting his penis inside the anus and inserting his fingers inside the
vagina constitutes the aggravating circumstance of ignominy

HELD

The court cites previous decisions where they stated that:

XXX there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior,
female inferior, but also "the same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from behind. XXX "The studies of many
experts in the matter have shown that this "position" is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to
by couples in the act of copulation." XXX This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners
but not otherwise.

Art. 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers to be an aggravating circumstance any means employed or
circumstance brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. The circumstance, it is said, "pertains
to the moral order [and] adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime."

Because the use of deadly weapon, which is a qualifying circumstance, was not included the complaint 1, the crime is
considered as simple rape with the single indivisible penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and not Reclusion Perpetua to the
supreme penalty of Death. Article 63 of the RPC provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed
1The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him