G.R. No. L-41992 May 30, 1983
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lodrigo Ijurcadas, Marcelino Dumayan and Ildefonso Ijurcadas, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants were convicted of robbery with double homicide for the killing of Damian del Monte and his son Rogelio on the evening of May 29, 1972, in Calbayog City. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the eyewitness testimony of Caridad Sagala, Damian’s wife. She testified that six men, whom she positively identified as including the three appellants, barged into their home. Lodrigo Ijurcadas demanded money while the others attacked her husband and son, resulting in their deaths. The robbers took P500.00 from a trunk before fleeing. Damian del Monte, Jr., the victims’ son and brother, also testified that he was shot by Ildefonso Ijurcadas when he attempted to investigate the commotion. The police recovered items at the scene, including a gunsight later identified as belonging to Ildefonso.
The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere and did not know the location of the crime scene. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the positive identification by the eyewitness credible and the alibi weak. The court found the crime attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superiority of strength, band, and dwelling, with no mitigating circumstances, and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the eyewitness identification and in rejecting their defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Caridad Sagala, who was present during the entire harrowing incident, provided a clear and positive identification of the appellants. Her testimony was deemed credible and sufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected, as it was not physically impossible for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. The Court noted that the appellants’ residence was not too far from the locus criminis, undermining their claim of ignorance of the location. The crime was correctly classified as the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. While the presence of multiple aggravating circumstances warranted the maximum penalty of death, the Court, lacking the required votes for its affirmation, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with the Judiciary Act. The civil indemnity was sustained.