People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Alfanta y Alo

A conviction for simple rape may rest on the complainant's credible testimony, but where the information does not allege the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon, the penalty cannot be death; simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is applied regardless of aggravating circumstances such as nighttime and ignominy.

Rolando Alfanta y Alo was the accused, and Nita Fernandez y Josefa was the complainant. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review because the Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, governed the charge: simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, while rape committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information.

On August 26, 1995, Nita Fernandez y Josefa was sleeping in the sala of the house of her friend Patrick at AFOVAI, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City. She had gone there from her work as a housemaid in Valle Verde, Pasig City, to bring mongo to Patrick's wife Inday, and because it was already late, she was told to sleep there. The door was closed but not locked. Earlier that evening, around 9:00 p.m., she saw a man pass in front of the house. Around midnight, according to the prosecution, a man she had not seen before entered, pulled her, boxed her jaw, placed his hand over her mouth, and threatened to kill her if she did not obey; he was holding a bolo. She resisted but could not do anything. He forced her to climb a fence and follow him to a vacant house. There, because of fear, she undressed when told. The man embraced and kissed her, told her to lie down and separate her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. He then ordered her to lie face down and inserted his penis into her anus, then made her turn face up and inserted his fingers into her private part. He told her not to tell anyone, saying "lahat ng nirape ko ay pinatay ko dahil sa ayokong may magsumbong." She shouted "tulungan po ninyo ako," but no one responded. When she noticed the man sleeping, she took the knife at his waist and stabbed him in the chest; the knife broke, so she grabbed the bolo and hacked him several times. She put on her dress, took the bolo, and ran to the signal office of soldiers, where she reported that she had killed a man. Soldiers took the bolo and accompanied her back; they found the man still alive, and he was brought to the hospital. He was identified as Rolando Alfanta y Alo.

Dr. Noel Minay, Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, examined Nita on August 27, 1995 at about 5:45 p.m. He found swelling on the left lower jaw or mandibular area and, upon hymen examination, that the labia majora and minora were gaping, similar to the appearance of a woman who had just given birth or a normal appearance resulting from several sexual intercourses. He submitted a report on his findings. Lilia Hogar of the Women's Desk Unit, Makati Police Station, testified that she came into possession of the bolo because Nita was brought to Sub-Station A; the bolo had been brought by Nita to the Military Signal Village and given to the Central Police Desk. Based on her investigation, she learned from Nita the account of the man entering, punching her, ordering her outside and over a fence, telling her to undress, boxing her breast, and raping her in a vacant house owned by Captain Pascua. On the way to the hospital in a Makati Police car, Hogar asked Alfanta why he raped Nita; Alfanta answered that Nita was not telling the truth because they were sweethearts.

Alfanta testified that on August 26, 1995, he was at AFOVAI Village, Makati, fixing the fence of General Renato Icarma's house with other laborers. Someone told him that his wife was waiting for him at Captain Pascua's house. At 10:00 p.m., he went there, knocked, and called Patrick Augusto Ablon, the caretaker; Belinda Ablon, Patrick's cousin, opened the door. Nita Fernandez, whom he claimed was his live-in partner for almost a year, came out angry because she had waited long and asked why he was late. He explained that he did not expect her because their understanding was that he would call or write before she came. Nita said they should talk outside because she was ashamed before the neighbors and would disturb the sleeping child. After talking for half an hour, he invited her to sleep. They went to a vacant house owned by a Colonel, passing a fence. The house was closed, so they slept on the terrace. He denied doing what Nita claimed. He said he was surprised why she hacked him and knew no reason; he believed she concocted the rape story because she feared he would file a case against her for hacking him.

On cross-examination, Alfanta testified that he had been staying at General Icarma's house since 1990 and worked as a mason since 1993. In February 1995, Nita's daughter Lucia, married to Lito, introduced him to Nita; they became sweethearts in February 1995. They did not live together because Nita worked at Valle Verde; they met on her days off. He had been to her workplace and used to call her at telephone numbers 6326062 and 6356060. They used to see each other at General Icarma's place where he lived. On August 26, 1995, Lucia and Lito were no longer residing at General Icarma's place because they had been told to leave in April 1993. While in the squatters area about 100 meters from General Icarma's house, Nita came looking for him; because she did not know the workers, she left and went to Captain Pascua's house at the back of General Icarma's. Melchor Rudy Abella told him Nita was looking for him. He went to Captain Pascua's and met Nita. Present were Augusto Ablon, his wife Rubylin, Belinda, and a small child, all awake except the child. Although Ablon was willing to accommodate them, he brought Nita to the Air Force Colonel's house because it had a roof if it rained and he was ashamed to stay at Ablon's. Nita did not like sleeping at Ablon's and preferred to return to Valle Verde; he did not allow her because it was late and, if anything happened to her, her daughter who knew their relationship would blame him. He did not bring her to General Icarma's house because it was crowded and the Colonel's house was just 20 meters from Captain Pascua's. They went to the Colonel's house by climbing the fence. He was carrying a banig, pillow, and blanket and did not notice Nita carrying a knife. No one lived in the Colonel's house, and it was closed; they slept on the terrace on cement flooring. While he was sleeping, Nita hacked him with a kitchen knife. When hacked, he said "aray." The bolo was not used in hacking him. After stabbing him, Nita left for the Military Police, leaving the kitchen knife. When the Military Police arrived, he was no longer at the Colonel's house because he had gone to another house where he slept. After he was stabbed, he asked Ablon for assistance; Ablon called the Military Police. He did not leave the Colonel's house; he just stayed in the premises. Despite his wounds, he was able to sleep and woke at 5:00 a.m. When asked why Nita stabbed him, he said it was because he hurt her by holding her hand and pushing her chest when she insisted on leaving for Valle Verde; because he hurt her, he did not file a complaint against her for hacking him.

The trial court found the complainant's testimony straightforward, categorical, and relatively free from serious flaw. It gave weight to her credibility, found no ulterior motive to fabricate, and rejected Alfanta's sweetheart theory for lack of concrete evidence, reasoning that a sweetheart would not stab and hack him as she did. It also found that the presence of other persons in the house did not disprove the assault because they were asleep and the victim was immediately threatened; the unlocked door did not show she wanted him to come; and she had no real opportunity to escape while the bolo-wielding man was behind her. These factual findings were the basis for the conviction.

• Conviction: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding and convicting him of rape.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in taking into consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy.
• Absence of Force or Intimidation: Accused-appellant argued that violence or intimidation was negated because at least three persons in the house could have responded to any shout for help; the door was purposely left unlocked to enable him to enter; and the victim could have escaped when she was made to climb the fence but did not.
• Sweetheart Theory: Accused-appellant claimed that he and the complainant had been live-in partners for almost a year, that they slept together on August 26, 1995 at the porch of an Air Force officer's house, and that he denied carnal knowledge that evening; he believed the rape charge was concocted because the complainant feared he would file a case against her for hacking him.

• Ignominy: The Solicitor General, for the plaintiff-appellee, invoked People vs. Saylan to support the finding of ignominy based on the sexual positions employed by accused-appellant.

• Credibility and Conviction: Whether the trial court erred in finding and convicting accused-appellant of rape.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the trial court erred in taking into consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty may be imposed where the information did not allege the use of a deadly weapon as a qualifying circumstance and simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty.

• Credibility and Conviction: No. The conviction was affirmed; the complainant's testimony was credible, force and intimidation were established, and the sweetheart defense was not substantiated.
• Aggravating Circumstances: No. Nighttime and ignominy were properly appreciated, but they cannot increase the penalty for simple rape.
• Penalty: No. The death penalty cannot be imposed; the information did not allege use of a deadly weapon as a qualifying circumstance, so simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua was the proper offense and penalty.

• Credibility and Conviction: The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect and will not be disturbed absent a material or substantial fact overlooked or misappreciated that could alter the outcome. No such oversight appeared. Complainant gave a thorough, straightforward, categorical narrative, relatively free from serious flaw, and the trial court found her credible. No evidence showed an ulterior motive to fabricate; the familiar doctrine is that when a woman claims rape, she says in effect all that is necessary if her testimony meets the test of credibility, for no woman in her right mind would cry rape, allow examination of her private parts, or subject herself and her family to the humiliation of prosecution unless the story were true. The defense's sweetheart theory was a worn-out strategy; no documentary evidence such as a letter, photograph, or memento confirmed a romantic liaison, and complainant denied it. The trial court reasonably found that a love partner would not stab and hack her beloved for petty reasons. The presence of three persons in the house did not disprove the assault because it was close to midnight and they were asleep; accused immediately hit complainant, covered her mouth, and threatened to kill her, so she was shocked, fearful, and cowed into submission. Intimidation is viewed from the victim's perception at the time, not by a hard-and-fast rule. The unlocked door did not show she wanted accused to come, and she had no real opportunity to escape because accused was behind her with a bolo and she remained within striking distance.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Nighttime is the period of darkness from sunset to sunrise. By itself it is not aggravating unless specially sought, specially taken advantage of, or used to facilitate the crime by ensuring immunity from capture. As an ordinary aggravating circumstance, it may be considered if duly proved even if not alleged. Accused-appellant took advantage of the cover of darkness to facilitate the crime without being recognized; he abducted the victim, brought her to an abandoned and unlit house, and unleashed his carnal desire assured of the stillness of a sleeping world. Ignominy under Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code covers any means employed or circumstance brought about that adds ignominy to the natural effects of the act; it pertains to the moral order and adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The victim testified that after vaginal penetration, accused ordered her face down and inserted his penis into her anus, then made her lie down again and inserted his fingers into her private part. The Solicitor General correctly invoked People vs. Saylan, where the Court held that the position used may be considered ignominious when the sexual act is not performed by consenting partners.
• Penalty: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes rape committed by force or intimidation with reclusion perpetua. When rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Accused-appellant was armed with a bolo, but the use of a deadly weapon could not be considered a qualifying circumstance because it was not alleged in the information; qualifying circumstances must be pleaded, and if proved but not pleaded, they are only aggravating. Otherwise, convicting an accused of qualified rape when the information charged simple rape would deny the right to be informed of the charges and due process. Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, a single indivisible penalty is applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Thus, even with nighttime and ignominy, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The trial court's award of P50,000.00 indemnity ex delictu was affirmed, and an additional P50,000.00 moral damages was ordered.

• Credibility of witnesses; deference to trial court — Appellate courts accord great respect to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility because it heard the evidence, and will not disturb it unless a material or substantial fact was overlooked or misappreciated that could alter the outcome. Applied: no such oversight appeared; complainant's testimony was credible.
• Rape victim's testimony — When a woman claims she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show the fact if her testimony meets the test of credibility; no woman in her right mind would cry rape, allow examination of her private parts, or subject herself and her family to humiliation unless the story were true. Applied: complainant's straightforward account was credited.
• Sweetheart defense — The claim that the complainant was the accused's sweetheart or live-in partner is a worn-out defense that must be substantiated; it cannot prevail against a credible rape victim's testimony, especially without documentary evidence. Applied: no letter, photograph, or memento; complainant denied; her violent reaction was inconsistent with a love relationship.
• Force and intimidation in rape — Intimidation is viewed from the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the offense, not by a hard-and-fast rule; the victim need not act with equanimity or courage, and failure to escape is not fatal if no real opportunity existed. Applied: complainant was threatened with a bolo, boxed, and had her mouth covered; other occupants were asleep; she could not escape.
• Nighttime as aggravating circumstance — Nighttime is from sunset to sunrise; it is aggravating only when specially sought, specially taken advantage of, or used to facilitate the crime and ensure immunity from capture; it may be considered if proved even if not alleged. Applied: accused took complainant to an abandoned, unlit house and exploited darkness.
• Ignominy as aggravating circumstance — Under Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code, ignominy includes any means or circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the natural effects of the crime. Applied: accused penetrated the victim vaginally, then anally from behind, then with his fingers; citing People vs. Saylan, such acts are ignominious when not between consenting partners.
• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information — A circumstance that qualifies an offense and increases the penalty by degrees must be pleaded in the information; if proved but not pleaded, it is only an aggravating circumstance. Applied: use of a deadly weapon, though proven, was not alleged, so accused could only be convicted of simple rape.
• Single indivisible penalty — Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied: simple rape carries reclusion perpetua; nighttime and ignominy did not change the penalty.

• "The doctrinally accepted rule is to accord great respect over the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses and, in the usual words of similar import employed by the Court, it would be best not to disturb the findings of the court which has heard the evidence except only when a material or substantial fact has truly been overlooked or misappreciated which if properly taken into account can alter the outcome of the case." — States the standard of review for credibility findings, which the Court applied in affirming the conviction.
• "By and of itself, nighttime would not be an aggravating circumstance unless it is specially sought by the offender, or it is specially taken advantage of by him, or it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture." — Defines when nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, a key ruling on the first assigned error.
• "Nonetheless, the use of a deadly weapon could not be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape for not having been correspondingly alleged in the information as to make the offense fall under the jurisprudentially referred "qualified rape" punishable by reclusion perpetua to death." — States the ratio for reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
• "Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, even if there were aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law." — Applies Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and explains why the aggravating circumstances did not affect the penalty.

• People vs. Teodoro, 280 SCRA 384 — Cited in support of the rule that the trial court's credibility findings are respected absent overlooked or misappreciated material facts.
• People vs. Roncal, 272 SCRA 242; People vs. Quitoriano, 266 SCRA 373 — Cited for the principle that a woman's claim of rape carries with it all that is necessary to show the fact if her testimony is credible.
• People vs. Mamalayan, 280 SCRA 748 — Cited for the proposition that no woman in her right mind would cry rape, allow examination of her private parts, or subject herself and her family to humiliation unless the charge were true.
• People vs. Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613; People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104 — Cited for the rule that intimidation in rape is viewed from the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the offense.
• People vs. Cayabyab, 274 SCRA 387; People vs. Narciso, 262 SCRA 1 — Cited for the rule that nighttime is not aggravating unless specially sought, specially taken advantage of, or used to facilitate immunity from capture.
• People vs. Gelera, 277 SCRA 450; People vs. Raquinio, 17 SCRA 914 — Cited for the rule that nighttime may be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance if proved even though not alleged in the information.
• People vs. Grefiel, 215 SCRA 596 — Cited for the rule that nighttime is aggravating when the accused takes advantage of the silence and darkness of the night to ensure impunity.
• People vs. Saylan, 130 SCRA 159 — Cited by the Solicitor General and relied on for the finding of ignominy; the Court held that a sexual position is not novel if used by consenting partners but is ignominious when the act is not consensual.
• People vs. Garcia, 281 SCRA 463 — Cited for the rule that qualifying circumstances must be pleaded in the indictment; if not pleaded but proved, they are only aggravating, and convicting an accused of qualified rape when only simple rape was charged would deny the right to be informed and due process.
• People vs. Collado, 60 Phil. 610; People vs. Jovellano, et al., L-32421, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 156; People vs. Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, January 17, 1994, 229 SCRA 289; People vs. Rodico, et al., G.R. No. 107101, October 16, 1995, 249 SCRA 309 — Cited in People vs. Garcia for the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded.
• U.S. vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 368; People vs. Domondon, 60 Phil. 729; People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 73464, August 1988, 164 SCRA 215 — Cited in People vs. Garcia for the rule that aggravating circumstances may be proved even if not pleaded.
• People vs. Codilla, 224 SCRA 104; People vs. Lemberte, 142 SCRA 685; People vs. Garcia, 105 SCRA 6; People vs. Entes, 103 SCRA 162 — Cited for the rule that use of a deadly weapon in rape cannot be considered a qualifying circumstance if not alleged in the information.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines rape by force or intimidation and punishes it with reclusion perpetua; when committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Applied: because the information did not allege use of a deadly weapon, only simple rape was charged and the lower penalty applied.
• Article 14, paragraph 17, Revised Penal Code — Defines ignominy as any means employed or circumstance brought about that adds ignominy to the natural effects of the act. Applied: the anal penetration and other acts added disgrace and obloquy.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides that a single indivisible penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied: reclusion perpetua was imposed despite nighttime and ignominy.
• Article 13, Civil Code — Defines nighttime as from sunset to sunrise. Applied: the Court used this definition in evaluating nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
• Republic Act No. 4111 — Introduced qualified forms of rape carrying the death penalty, including rape with use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, and such qualifying circumstances must be pleaded. Applied through People vs. Garcia.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — Cited in the text as Section 11, Article 335, R.A. 7659, in relation to the penalty for rape. Applied: the Court considered the penalty provision but held that the information did not support qualified rape.
• Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation / due process — Invoked in the discussion of why qualifying circumstances must be alleged; convicting an accused of qualified rape when the information charged simple rape would deny this right. The text does not cite a specific constitutional article.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concurred.