G.R. No. 137278-79 - People vs. Besmonte

The case involves two consolidated criminal cases where the accused, Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno and Sonny Apuyan y Morin, were charged with rape committed against AAA, a 15-year-old minor.
The victim, AAA, was closely related to the accused: Apuyan was her maternal uncle (the brother of her mother) and Besmonte was the second husband of her maternal grandmother.
The crimes were committed in Barangay Hubo, Municipality of Magallanes, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines.

In Criminal Case No. 95-3918, appellant Besmonte was charged with having raped AAA on December 15, 1994. The charge alleged that, armed with a bladed instrument and with lewd designs, he engaged in carnal knowledge of the victim through force, violence, and intimidation.
In Criminal Case No. 95-3919, appellant Apuyan was similarly charged with raping AAA on or about May 31, 1994, including subsequent episodes. His charge also alleged the use of a knife (considered a deadly weapon), force, and intimidation in the commission of the crime.

The victim was staying at the house of appellant Apuyan, where Besmonte also resided at the time of the alleged rapes.
AAA was discovered to be pregnant, a fact brought out during the investigation and confirmed by a doctor following her examination.
Testimonies revealed that after being raped by Apuyan, AAA was later further victimized by Besmonte under threats of harm toward her and her siblings.
The victim, with assistance from relatives and witnesses, eventually reported the incidents, leading to the filing of the information by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Sorsogon.

Agnes Hinanay, a paternal first cousin of the victim, testified about the victim’s condition, noting her pregnancy and recounting the details of the rapes as disclosed by AAA.
AAA herself testified in detail, describing the physical assault, the use of a knife by Apuyan, threats made, and even identifying Besmonte by his voice and distinctive underarm odor.

Additional documentary evidence included the victim’s medical examination and sworn statements executed at the police station.

Appellant Apuyan claimed an alibi by stating he was engaged in a drinking spree in the poblacion of Hubo that ended with him falling asleep at home.
He denied the rape allegations and also denied executing any counter-affidavit regarding a marital agreement, which was brought up during trial.
Appellant Besmonte also denied the rape charge on December 15, 1994, alleging that he was in Sorsogon engaged in work related to a mussel farm, a claim supported by the testimony of his wife, Rosalina Apuyan.
Both accused tried to discredit the testimony of AAA, questioning her credibility based on alleged inconsistencies and the improbability of the crimes occurring in a household with several persons present.

The Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon consolidated the cases and found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
Both accused were sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with additional orders to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the victim.
The judgments detailed the penalties as well as the justification for crediting the duration of confinement pursuant to legal provisions.

The accused appealed, contending errors in the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of the private complainant AAA, arguing that her inconsistencies and the circumstances (including the presence of other household members) should have created reasonable doubt.
Appellants also questioned the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the identification of Besmonte, and challenged the alibi evidence provided.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) recommended increasing the penalty for appellant Apuyan to the death penalty due to the use of a deadly weapon and a qualifying/aggravating circumstance, though this was also contested as the requisite aggravating circumstance (the relationship between the victim and the accused) was not duly alleged in the information.

Whether the alleged inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, particularly her account of physical details and events preceding the rape, undermined her credibility.
Whether the fact that other household members were sleeping invalidates the possibility that the crimes occurred as testified.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape.
The role of the corroborative testimonies (from Agnes Hinanay and the victim) in substantiating the chain of events.

Whether the identification of Besmonte by AAA, based on her familiarity with his voice and underarm odor, was reliable given the circumstances (e.g., darkness and the presence of other persons).
Whether the positive identification could stand against the challenges raised by the defendants regarding poor illumination and the alleged improbability of such identification.

Whether Apuyan’s claim of being intoxicated and asleep in another part of the house was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence.
Whether Besmonte’s alibi, based largely on his presence in Sorsogon, was adequately supported and logically precluded him from being present at the crime scene.

Whether the trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty for Apuyan, given the use of a deadly weapon and the discussion around aggravating circumstances.
Whether the award for moral damages should be increased and the exemplary damages sustained as a deterrent.