G.R. No. 161107 - Ferdo vs. St. Scholastica's College

The accused – Rodolfo Yurong alias Rudy, Felix Bahian, Apolinario Bahian, Sale Lagudas, and Amado Garcenes – were charged with the murder of Ricardo Daligdig.
The killing occurred on the evening of November 4, 1971, at Libas, Sawang, Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte.
The crime was committed with qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was also present.
The prosecution presented the charge stating that the accused, armed with a homemade shotgun known locally as “Paliuntod,” conspired to attack and shoot the victim, inflicting multiple fatal gunshot wounds.
As a result, the heirs of the victim were entitled to damages covering death indemnity, loss of earning capacity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

After supper at around 8:00 p.m., Ricardo and his wife Rufina Daligdig were preparing to retire in their home situated near the beaches.
While Rufina was reclining and Ricardo was seated in their living area, the barking of dogs prompted Ricardo to investigate the disturbance.
Ricardo proceeded toward the kitchen, observed no one, and then began to ascend back to the living area, where he was suddenly shot.

The victim staggered and exclaimed for help as he collapsed.
Rufina rushed to her husband, felt blood oozing from his back, and witnessed a second shot narrowly miss her, save for singeing her hair.
Despite the chaos, Rufina attempted to alert the neighbors and eventually sought help from a nearby resident and local authorities.

Rufina, though initially fearful, eventually crawled down to the kitchen and identified four individuals; among them, she recognized Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian.
She refrained from immediately disclosing the full extent of her identification due to the immediate threat posed by the possible relations of the perpetrators and her fear of further harm.
Only after her husband’s burial did Rufina file an affidavit with the NBI, clearly identifying the appellants as responsible for the offense.

The discovery of an empty shell of a 12-inch shotgun, punctured pumpboat with holes, and a pellet found inside a container contributed to corroborating the sequence of events.
Judicial findings included detailed sketches by Judge Nicomedes Cabasag, which helped establish the direction and position of the shots fired.

The prosecution rested its case before the dismissal of charges against Sale Lagudas and Amado Garcenes due to insufficiency of evidence.
Accused Apolinario Bahian was also acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence.
The trial court, however, found Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian guilty of murder.

Rodolfo testified that he was at the house of Atty. Dioscoro Elumbaring in Marapong since September 5, 1971, and only learned of the murder on November 12, 1971.
Felix Bahian stated that he was engaged in fishing until late on the day of the incident and was unaware of the crime until a later arrest on December 23, 1971.
Both alibi defenses were found to be incredible in light of the circumstantial and testimonial evidence presented.

Testimony by Dionisio Martinez, the accused’s uncle, and disinterested witnesses such as Virgilio Otad, further undermined the defense claims.
The account provided by Rufina Daligdig, though delayed, was given due consideration in light of her genuine fear and the presence of potentially curious or hostile relatives in the vicinity.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian with cogent and credible evidence.
The role of the circumstantial evidence, including physical findings and judicial sketches, in corroborating the eyewitness testimony.

Whether Rufina Daligdig’s delay in identifying her husband’s killers affects the probative value of her testimony.
The explanation provided by the circumstances—being among relatives of the perpetrators and the immediate threat to her safety—for her initial reluctance to disclose the identities.

Whether the alibi provided by Rodolfo Yurong and Felix Bahian could be accepted given the conflicting eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
The consistency and credibility of the accused’s respective accounts in comparison to other evidence presented.

Whether the absence of a clearly established motive could undermine the prosecution’s case for murder.
The principle that, once the identity of the perpetrators is beyond reasonable doubt, an articulated motive is not a sine qua non for conviction.

Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua is appropriate given the aggravating circumstances of the crime.
Determining the adequacy of the indemnity awarded to the victim’s heirs and whether it needs modification.