People vs. Dadao

Positive identification by credible eyewitnesses prevails over the defense of alibi, and minor inconsistencies in testimonies on immaterial details do not impair the witnesses' credibility; treachery, when alleged in the information and proven, qualifies the killing to murder, and abuse of superior strength, if concurrent, is absorbed therein. The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal and civil liability ex delicto where no final judgment had yet been rendered.

Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi were charged with the murder of Pionio Yacapin, a resident of Barangay Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon. The accused were neighbors or acquaintances within the same locality. The killing occurred on July 11, 1993, and the accused were arraigned on September 27, 1993, all pleading not guilty. Eddie Malogsi died on August 25, 2003, while his appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC conviction with modifications.

On July 11, 1993, at approximately 7:30 in the evening, Pionio Yacapin was at his home in Barangay Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon, when he was attacked and killed. The prosecution's principal eyewitnesses were the victim's two stepsons — Ronie Dacion, then 14 years old, and Edgar Dacion, then 12 years old — and the victim's widow, Nenita Yacapin. Ronie testified that he saw accused Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi helping one another, armed with firearms and bolos, shoot the victim to death inside their house. Edgar corroborated his brother's testimony, and Nenita further corroborated both, testifying as well to the civil and moral damages she suffered from her husband's death.

According to the prosecution, the victim was shot from behind through the bamboo split walling of the house while he was making a fire in the kitchen. An anatomical chart certified by PNP personnel indicated that the victim sustained gunshot wounds to his back and left leg. Eight empty Garand rifle shells of caliber .30 were recovered from the yard of the hut the following morning. Bernandino Signawan testified that at about 10:00 PM that same evening, Ronie and Edgar arrived at his house and reported that their stepfather had been killed by the four accused. The following morning, Signawan and others, including the barangay captain and the two boys, returned to the victim's house and found him already dead. Modesto Libyocan, a neighbor, corroborated that on the evening of July 11, 1993, he saw flashlight beams and heard several gunshots from the victim's house, and the following morning he joined barangay officials in confirming the victim's death.

The accused presented a defense of alibi. Eddie Malogsi testified that at the time of the incident, he was at the farm of a certain Boyle together with his brother Alfemio Malogsi, both working as farm laborers. Alfemio corroborated this, adding that he never owned a Garand rifle. Antonio Sulindao claimed he was at Salucot with his family and merely heard gunshots at 7:30 PM. Marcelino Dadao testified that he had been staying for three months at the house of Fernandez Saplina at Sitio San Fernandez, Salucot — approximately seven kilometers from the victim's house — and did not leave until the following morning. The defense also presented Police Inspector Vicente Armada, who conducted paraffin tests on all four accused on July 30, 1993, yielding negative results for powder burns. Corroborating witnesses for Dadao's alibi (Saplina and Camilo Dumalig) and Sulindao's alibi (Venancio Payonda, his father-in-law) were friends or relatives of the accused.

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, crediting the prosecution's eyewitnesses and appreciating treachery as the qualifying circumstance. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, adding awards for civil indemnity and temperate damages. During the pendency of the appeal, Eddie Malogsi died on August 25, 2003, prompting his bondsman to seek cancellation of the encumbrance on his bail bond, which the Court of Appeals granted on February 11, 2008. The remaining appellants elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the disregard of their defense, and the alleged appreciation of abuse of superior strength not alleged in the information.

• Reasonable Doubt: Appellants argued that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were afflicted with inconsistencies and improbabilities, rendering them of doubtful veracity.
• Credibility of Defense Evidence: Appellants faulted the trial court for disbelieving their alibis and for disregarding the negative paraffin test results conducted on all four of them.
• Non-Flight: Appellants underscored that they did not take flight despite knowing they were suspects in the murder, which they contended militated against a finding of criminal liability.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Appellants maintained that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength should not have been appreciated because it was not alleged in the criminal information filed against them.

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Whether the prosecution eyewitness testimonies — specifically those of the victim's two stepsons and widow — are credible enough to warrant conviction despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Sufficiency of Defense: Whether the defense of alibi, negative paraffin test results, and non-flight are sufficient to overcome positive identification by prosecution witnesses.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the trial court erred in appreciating abuse of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance when it was not alleged in the information.
• Extinction of Liability by Death: Whether the death of Eddie Malogsi during the pendency of the appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liability.

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: Yes. The testimonies of Ronie Dacion, Edgar Dacion, and Nenita Yacapin were credible, the alleged inconsistencies being minor and immaterial, and positively identifying the appellants as the perpetrators.
• Sufficiency of Defense: No. Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, negative paraffin test results are not conclusive proof of non-firing of a gun, and non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence.
• Qualifying Circumstance: No. The trial court appreciated treachery — which was alleged in the information — as the qualifying circumstance, not abuse of superior strength; even if the latter were proven, it would be absorbed by treachery.
• Extinction of Liability by Death: Yes. The criminal case against Eddie Malogsi was dismissed, his criminal and civil liability ex delicto having been extinguished by his death during the pendency of the case pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Credibility of Eyewitnesses: The resolution of witness credibility is best left to the trial court, which is in a better position to observe the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of witnesses under examination. Absent any misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, the trial court's findings shall not be disturbed on appeal. The alleged inconsistencies cited by appellants — whether the stepsons left together for Ticalaan, whether the accused were still firing when the stepsons left, and whether the accused went after the stepsons — pertained to minor, immaterial details that do not diminish the probative value of the testimonies. As long as the testimonies corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy their credibility. No imputation of improper motive was ever made against the prosecution witnesses, and absent such evidence, it is presumed they were not so actuated, entitling their testimony to full faith and credit. Ronie, Edgar, and Nenita positively and consistently identified the appellants as the perpetrators of the murder, which they categorically claimed to have personally witnessed.

• Sufficiency of Defense: Positive identification prevails over alibi, which can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable; it must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, and without such, is fatal to the accused. Eddie and Alfemio Malogsi presented no corroborating witness for their alibi, while the corroborating witnesses for Dadao and Sulindao were friends and relatives — hardly the disinterested witnesses required. The negative paraffin test results were not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun, as established in jurisprudence. Moreover, only Eddie and Alfemio Malogsi were accused of holding firearms; Dadao and Sulindao allegedly held bolos, explaining their negative results. All four accused shared a community of criminal design, and by their concerted action conspired to murder the victim, each incurring the same criminal liability regardless of who fired the fatal weapon. Non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence; culprits behave differently, and some may remain in the vicinity to create a semblance of regularity and avoid suspicion.

• Qualifying Circumstance: The text of the trial court's January 31, 2005 Decision shows that while abuse of superior strength was discussed as present in the commission of the crime, it was not appreciated as either a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. The trial court appreciated treachery, which was alleged in the information, as the qualifying circumstance. This was proper. Even if abuse of superior strength were properly alleged and proven, it could not qualify or aggravate the felony because when abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. The victim was shot from behind through the bamboo walling while making a fire in the kitchen, making it impossible for him to defend himself or retaliate.

• Extinction of Liability by Death: The Court of Appeals did not rule on the effect of Eddie Malogsi's death during the pendency of the case. Because no final judgment had been rendered against him at the time of his death, whether or not he was guilty had become irrelevant. Even assuming he incurred criminal and civil liability ex delicto, these were totally extinguished by his death, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and, by analogy, the ruling in People vs. Bayotas. The criminal case was therefore dismissed with respect to Eddie Malogsi only.

• Credibility of Trial Court's Findings — The resolution of questions pertaining to the credibility of witnesses is best addressed by the trial court, which is in a better position to decide such questions, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under examination. Findings of the trial court on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted so as to materially affect the disposition of the case. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the trial court's crediting of the prosecution eyewitnesses' testimonies.

• Presumption of No Ill Motive — Where there is no evidence that prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. The Court applied this presumption because appellants never imputed improper motive to the prosecution witnesses.

• Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Impair Credibility — Slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness, pertaining to immaterial and insignificant details, hardly weaken their probative value. As long as testimonies corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies cannot destroy credibility. The Court found that the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies involved minor details and did not undermine their positive identification of the accused.

• Positive Identification Prevails Over Alibi — Positive identification prevails over alibi since the latter can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses; without such corroboration, it is fatal to the accused. The Court applied this principle to reject the appellants' alibis, noting that corroborating witnesses were either absent (for the Malogsi brothers) or were friends and relatives (for Dadao and Sulindao).

• Paraffin Test Not Conclusive — A paraffin test is not conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the appellants' argument that their negative paraffin test results warranted acquittal, noting further that two of the accused were never accused of having fired any gun.

• Conspiracy; Act of One Is Act of All — There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the absence of direct proof, the agreement may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. Once established, each conspirator is criminally liable for the crime committed by any one of them; it does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound. The Court found that all four accused, by their concerted action, shared a community of criminal design in murdering the victim.

• Non-Flight Does Not Necessarily Connote Innocence — Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently; some may remain in the same vicinity to create a semblance of regularity and avoid suspicion. The Court dismissed the appellants' argument that their non-flight militated against criminal liability.

• Absorption of Abuse of Superior Strength in Treachery — When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter and cannot serve to qualify or aggravate the felony. The Court applied this doctrine to clarify that even if abuse of superior strength were present, it could not qualify or aggravate the offense because treachery was the controlling qualifying circumstance.

• Treachery — Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. The Court found treachery present because the victim was shot from behind through the bamboo walling while making a fire, making defense or retaliation impossible.

• Extinction of Criminal and Civil Liability by Death of Accused Pending Appeal — When an accused dies during the pendency of the case and no final judgment has been rendered against him, both criminal and civil liability ex delicto are totally extinguished by death, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the case against Eddie Malogsi, who died on August 25, 2003, while his appeal was pending.

• "There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and then decide to commit it. It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. Once established, each and every one of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them." — This passage articulates the principle of conspiracy and the collective liability of conspirators, central to the Court's holding that all four accused bore equal criminal liability regardless of who fired the fatal weapon.

• "Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee – a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt – while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community." — This passage defines the doctrine that non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence, directly rejecting the appellants' argument that their failure to flee warranted acquittal.

• "[W]hen the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter." — This passage states the rule of absorption of abuse of superior strength into treachery, resolving the appellants' assignment of error regarding the qualifying circumstance.

• People vs. De la Rosa, G.R. No. 201723, June 13, 2013 — Cited for the principle that witness credibility is best addressed by the trial court, which observes the witness's demeanor and conduct; findings on such matters will not be disturbed on appeal absent misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion.
• Avelino vs. People, G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013 — Cited for the doctrine that minor inconsistencies on immaterial details do not impair the probative value of witness testimonies, provided the testimonies corroborate one another on material points.
• People vs. Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012 — Cited for the elaboration of the principle of criminal conspiracy, including that the agreement to commit a crime may be inferred from acts pointing to a joint purpose and design, and that the act of one conspirator is the act of all.
• People vs. Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013 — Cited for the doctrine that non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence, as culprits behave differently in externalizing guilt.
• People vs. Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012 — Cited for the rule that when abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter.
• People vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994 — Cited by analogy for the proposition that the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal and civil liability ex delicto where no final judgment has been rendered.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes the felony of murder, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court upheld the imposition of reclusion perpetua, there being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances.
• Article 63, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. The Court applied this rule to justify the penalty of reclusion perpetua (the lesser penalty) in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
• Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the offender, as to the person of the offender. The Court applied this provision to dismiss the case against Eddie Malogsi, who died during the pendency of the appeal before final judgment.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were noted.