G.R. No. L-39025 October 31, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO YURONG, alias Rudy, FELIX BAHIAN, APOLINARIO BAHIAN, SALE LAGUDAS and AMADO GARCENES, accused, RODOLFO YURONG, alias Rudy, and FELIX BAHIAN, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian, along with others, were charged with Murder for the killing of Ricardo Daligdig on November 4, 1971, in Zamboanga del Norte. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. After trial, the charges against Sale Lagudas and Amado Garcenes were dismissed, and Apolinario Bahian was acquitted. However, Yurong and Bahian were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with damages.
The prosecution evidence established that after supper, the victim Ricardo Daligdig and his wife Rufina were in their home when dogs barked. Ricardo went to investigate and was shot upon returning upstairs. A second shot nearly hit Rufina. She extinguished the lamps and later crawled to the kitchen, where she saw four persons outside, positively identifying appellants Yurong and Bahian as two of them, holding long-barreled firearms. The assailants also fired at the victim’s pumpboat before leaving. Rufina did not immediately reveal the identities of the killers to the initial responders, the barrio captain and a policeman, out of fear, as they were in an area among the relatives of the accused. She later identified the appellants to police authorities in Dipolog City.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of appellants Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian for Murder is proper.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the positive identification by eyewitness Rufina Daligdig, the victim’s wife. Her testimony was found credible and sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it could not prevail over the positive identification. The delay in Rufina’s disclosure of the appellants’ identities was justified by the circumstances; her fear was reasonable given she was in a locality populated by the accused’s relatives immediately after the crime, and she subsequently identified them to proper authorities.
The crime committed is Murder, qualified by treachery. The attack was sudden, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, which constitutes alevosia. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was also present, as the attack occurred in the victim’s home. With no mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be in its maximum period. However, for lack of the necessary votes for the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The Court modified the award by increasing the civil indemnity for death to P30,000.00. The appealed judgment was affirmed with this modification.