FACTS:

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming with modifications the conviction of Marcelino Dadao, Antonio Sulindao, Eddie Malogsi, and Alfemio Malogsi for the murder of Pionio Yacapin. The charge against the accused alleges that on July 11, 1993, at around 7:30 in the evening in Barangay Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon, the accused conspired and attacked the victim with intent to kill, using firearms and bolos. The victim suffered fatal gunshot wounds.

The trial court received evidence from prosecution witnesses, including stepsons of the victim, the widow of the victim, a neighbor who was informed about the incident, a police officer, and a witness who saw lights and heard gunshots near the victim's house. The defense presented witnesses who testified to the negative results of paraffin tests on the accused, and provided alibi and denial as defenses.

Accused Marcelino Dadao was allegedly present in his house in San Fernandez, Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon on the date and time of the incident. He did not leave his house on that day. The defense presented witnesses who testified that Dadao had been residing in San Fernandez, which is about 7 kilometers away from the place of the incident. One of the witnesses visited Dadao at the municipal jail where he was detained as a suspect in the killing. Another witness, the father-in-law of accused Antonio Sulindao, testified that Sulindao was in his house the whole day on the date of the incident. Dadao himself testified that he had been staying at the house of Fernandez Saplina three months prior to the incident. He stated that he did not leave the house until the following morning.

After the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Appellants appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision with modifications. Appellants then sought recourse with the Supreme Court, asserting that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and arguing against the court's appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which was not alleged in the information filed against them.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the eyewitness testimonies presented by the prosecution are credible.

2. Whether the trial court correctly disregarded the defense of alibi.

3. Whether the negative result of the paraffin tests should be considered as sufficient ground for acquittal.

4. Whether the absence of powder burns on the appellants' hands is conclusive proof that they did not fire a gun.

5. Whether the appellants can be held liable for murder through conspiracy, despite only two of them holding firearms during the fatal shooting.

6. Whether the appellants' non-flight after the commission of the crime is indicative of their innocence.

7. Whether abuse of superior strength was used by the trial court to qualify the act of killing committed by appellants to murder even though it was not alleged in the criminal information.

8. Whether the award of civil indemnity and temperate damages is proper.

9. Whether the amounts of moral and exemplary damages should be modified.

10. Whether the effect of the death of Eddie Malogsi during the pendency of the case was properly addressed.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the resolution of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found to be credible and worthy of belief. The Court also noted that no improper motive was imputed to the prosecution witnesses.

2. The defense of alibi was rejected by the Court as it could easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. The positive identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses prevails over the defense of alibi. The Court also noted that the corroboration presented by the defense was not from disinterested witnesses, as required by jurisprudence.

3. The negative result of the paraffin tests was deemed insufficient to prove that the appellants did not fire a gun. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that a paraffin test is not conclusive proof of a person not firing a gun.

4. The absence of powder burns on the appellants' hands is not conclusive proof that they did not fire a gun.

5. The appellants can be held liable for murder through conspiracy, regardless of who actually fired the fatal shots.

6. The appellants' non-flight after the commission of the crime does not necessarily connote innocence.

7. Abuse of superior strength was not used to qualify the act of killing committed by the appellants to murder, as it was not appreciated as either a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery, which was alleged in the information, qualified the offense to murder.

8. The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 and temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

9. The Court modified the amounts of moral and exemplary damages. The award of exemplary damages was increased from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00, while the award of moral damages was decreased from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.

10. The Court observed that the criminal case should be dismissed with respect to the deceased Eddie Malogsi since his death extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and the ruling in People v. Bayotas.

PRINCIPLES:

• The resolution of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion.

• Where there is no evidence that the prosecution witnesses were actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.

• Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on immaterial details do not diminish the probative value of their testimonies, as long as they corroborate each other on material points.

• Positive identification prevails over the defense of alibi, as alibi can easily be fabricated and is inherently unreliable. Alibi must be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses, or else it is fatal to the accused.

• A negative result of a paraffin test is not conclusive proof of a person not firing a gun.

• Conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Each conspirator is criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any one of them. The agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.

• Non-flight does not necessarily connote innocence, as culprits behave differently in manifesting guilt. Some may flee, while others may remain in the same vicinity to avoid suspicion.

• Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery when both circumstances concur during the commission of the crime. Treachery is present when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense the victim might make.

• When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; actual or compensatory damages; moral damages; exemplary damages; and temperate damages when recoverable.

• The following may be recovered in a criminal case: civil indemnity ex delicto, actual or compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and interest.

• Civil indemnity and temperate damages are proper in cases involving the death of the victim even without actual proof of expenses.

• The amounts of moral and exemplary damages may be modified to conform to existing jurisprudence.

• The death of the accused before the finality of judgment extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, regardless of whether or not there was a final judgment rendered against them.