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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137278-79)

Factual Background

The victim, referred to throughout the records as AAA, was fifteen years old at the time of the incidents and was related to the accused: Sonny Apuyan y Morin was her maternal uncle and Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno was the husband of her maternal grandmother. AAA lived in the house of Apuyan, where Besmonte also resided. The complaint alleged that Apuyan raped AAA on May 31, 1994 and on several subsequent occasions, and that Besmonte raped her on December 15, 1994. AAA became pregnant and gave birth in 1995.

Police Report and Informations Filed

On April 17, 1995, a relative observed AAA’s pregnancy, reported the matter to the police, and caused AAA to undergo a medical examination confirming pregnancy. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Sorsogon filed an information against Besmonte (Crim. Case No. 95-3918) and an information against Apuyan (Crim. Case No. 95-3919), each charging rape under the Revised Penal Code.

Trial Court Proceedings

The cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Besmonte pleaded not guilty on July 27, 1995; Apuyan pleaded not guilty on September 25, 1995. The prosecution presented two witnesses: a paternal cousin of the victim and AAA herself. The defense presented the accused and a few supporting witnesses claiming alibi and denial.

Prosecution's Evidence

AAA testified in detail about the incidents. She recounted that on May 31, 1994 Apuyan undressed her at midnight, threatened her with a knife, forced himself upon her, inflicted pain and bleeding, and threatened to kill her and her siblings if she told anyone. She similarly testified that on December 15, 1994 Besmonte placed himself on top of her and had sexual intercourse with her while threatening to kill her and her siblings. AAA identified both accused in open court by voice and odour and displayed emotional distress while testifying. Her cousin corroborated that she reported the rape to the police, accompanied her to a doctor, and removed her from the household.

Defense's Case

Apuyan asserted that on May 31, 1994 he was in the barangay proper drinking with friends from late afternoon until ten o’clock in the evening, then slept at home and only awakened the following morning; he denied the rape and denied executing a purported counter-affidavit. Besmonte claimed he was in Sorsogon, Sorsogon from May 30, 1994 to January 1, 1995 working at a mussel farm and therefore could not have been present on December 15, 1994. Besmonte offered testimony from his wife who corroborated his alleged absence and described the crowded sleeping arrangements in the house.

Trial Court Decision

On September 7, 1998, the Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua and ordered payment of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P10,000 as moral damages to the victim, plus costs.

Issues Presented on Appeal

The appellants raised three principal errors: (1) that the trial court relied on the incredible testimony of AAA; (2) that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) that Besmonte was not sufficiently identified as the perpetrator.

Appellants' Contentions

Appellants argued that AAA’s testimony was improbable because she allegedly slept adjacent to siblings who were not awakened during the assaults and because her testimony contained inconsistencies and poor recollection of peripheral facts. Besmonte further argued that identification was impossible because the room lacked illumination and reliance on underarm odour alone could not suffice. Both accused claimed alibi and denied the charges.

Respondent's and Prosecution's Position

The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that rape may occur in crowded dwellings and that the presence of other occupants did not render AAA’s narrative impossible. The prosecution emphasized that minor inconsistencies were peripheral and did not impugn the core of AAA’s testimony. The prosecution also pointed to AAA’s familiarity with Besmonte and Apuyan, arguing that identification by voice and smell was reliable under the circumstances.

Supreme Court's Assessment of Credibility

The Court accepted the trial court’s credibility determinations, noting the trial judge’s advantage in observing the witness. The Court described AAA’s testimony as forthright, clear, and consistent on essential matters, and found her display of emotion while testifying to support her credibility. The Court held that the sole testimony of a rape victim, if credible, suffices to convict.

Supreme Court's Ruling on the Presence of Others and Improbability Argument

The Court rejected appellants’ assertion that the assaults were impossible because other persons slept nearby. It reiterated that rape has been held to occur in crowded places and in rooms shared with others and observed that deep slumber at midnight renders non-awakening of siblings plausible. The Court concluded that this circumstance did not render AAA’s testimony incredible.

Supreme Court's Findings on Identification of Besmonte

The Court found that AAA’s identification of Besmonte by voice and by underarm odour was reliable because of her prolonged personal acquaintance with him, including cohabitation for several years and his admitted role in her upbringing. The Court held that olfactory and auditory recognition, when grounded in prior familiarity, may constitute adequate modes of positive identification. The Court further held that the lack of illumination did not undermine identification under the attendant circumstances.

Supreme Court's Findings on Alibi

The Court held that alibi must be proved by evidence that convincingly demonstrates the physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene. Besmonte’s alibi was supported only by testimony from his wife and lacked independent corroboration. The Court observed that it was judicially noticeable that travel between Sorsogon town and the poblacion of Magallanes could be effected by jeep within about one hour, making presence at the crime scene physically possible. The Court therefore found the alibi insufficient.

Application of Statutory Penalty Provisions

The Court analyzed penalty issues under R.A. No. 8353 and Art. 266-B, Revised Penal Code, which made rape a crime against persons and provided that rape committed with a deadly weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The Office of the Solicitor General urged imposition of death on Apuyan for use of a knife. The Court declined to impose death because the prosecution did not allege in the information the relationship between Apuyan and AAA as a generic aggravating circumstance, and Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 require that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be specifically alleged in the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 137278-79)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines was the plaintiff-appellee in consolidated criminal prosecutions for rape.
Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno and Sonny Apuyan y Morin were the accused-appellants convicted by the trial court.
The Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52, promulgated the consolidated judgment on September 7, 1998 in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-3918 and 95-3919 finding both appellants guilty of rape and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua.
The consolidated judgment was brought before the Court on appeal by the appellants contesting conviction and aspects of the penalty and damages.

Key Factual Allegations

AAA was a fifteen-year-old female at the time of the alleged offenses and was related to the appellants.
Sonny Apuyan y Morin was the maternal uncle of AAA and was alleged to have raped her on May 31, 1994 and on several subsequent occasions.
Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno was the second husband of AAA's maternal grandmother and was alleged to have raped her on December 15, 1994.
The alleged rapes occurred at night while AAA was sleeping in the house where the appellants resided and where other family members also slept.
AAA reported her pregnancy to relatives who then removed her from the house and reported the matter to the police on April 17, 1995, and a medical examination confirmed pregnancy.
AAA delivered a baby boy in 1995 and testified that both appellants threatened to kill her and her siblings if she reported the incidents.

Procedural History

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed an information against Besmonte as Criminal Case No. 95-3918 and an information against Apuyan as Criminal Case No. 95-3919.
Besmonte was arraigned on July 27, 1995 and pleaded not guilty, while Apuyan was arraigned on September 25, 1995 and likewise pleaded not guilty.
The two cases were consolidated and jointly tried, with the prosecution presenting two witnesses including AAA and her paternal cousin.
The trial court convicted both appellants of rape and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, ordered P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P10,000.00 as moral damages, and costs.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in relying on the alleged incredible testimony of AAA.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether Frivaldo Besmonte y Loreno was sufficiently identified as the assailant on December 15, 1994.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellants contended that AAA's testimony was inherently improbable because she slept beside siblings who were not awakened and because her testimony contained inconsistencies and gaps in memory.
Apuyan asserted a defense of denial and alibi predicated on heavy drinking and sleeping in a house crowded with other occupants.
Besmonte asserted a defense of denial and alibi by claiming employment in Sorsogon from May 30, 1994 to January 1, 1995 and offered his wife's testimony in support.
The Office of the Solicitor General argued that rape can occur in crowded settings, that AAA was a credible witness whose testimony sufficed for conviction, and that the use of a knife by Apuyan qualified the offense under R.A. No. 8353 and Art. 266-B to warrant reclusion perpetua to death.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found AAA forthright, clear, and free from serious contradictions and accepted her identification of both appellants.
The trial court concluded that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced each appellant to reclusion perpetua, ordered P50,000.00 as civil indemni