This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2009-08-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently adhered to the principle that proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness, and his participation is adequately established. Motive assumes true significance only when there is no showing of who the perpetrator of a crime might have been.[60] In this case, not only were the appellants positively identified as the killers, it was shown that they had a motive to kill the victims. As shown by the evidence, appellants Ismael Diaz and Rodolfo Diaz are the son and cousin, respectively, of the late Pablo Diaz, the political opponent of Consolacion Quinto, who is the mother of Councilor Quinto. Councilor Quinto is suspected of having masterminded the killing of Pablo Diaz. | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| x x x x x x Q Are you sure that when Rod Flores fell to the ground, he was not able to rise nor was he able to run away? A He was able to run but then he was drunk and the accused was able to catch and stab him again, sir. x x x x x x Q Are you positive to the identity of Danny delos Santos that he was the one who stabbed Rod Flores? A Yes, sir."[29] Appellant argues that since the prosecution witnesses testified that there was no altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no motive to kill can be attributed to him. This is an inconsequential argument. Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established.[30] In People vs. Galano,[31] we ruled that in the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. In the case before us, no such doubt exits as De Leon and Tablate positively identified appellant. | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As previously held, motive is not an essential element of a crime,[5] particularly of murder.[6] It becomes relevant only where there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the commission of a crime and evidence is purely circumstantial.[7] In this case, the prosecution's evidence is not circumstantial. The offended party in Crim. Case No. 8079, Lucenda Micutuan, positively, consistently, and categorically identified appellant as the person who clubbed her and her boyfriend Leonito Doliente, resulting to his death.[8] Where the identity of the malefactor is established, proof of motive or the lack of it is not essential to sustain a conviction.[9] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Motive is not an essential element of a crime,[45] particularly of murder.[46] It becomes relevant only where there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the commission of a crime.[47] Stated otherwise, proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an accused's participation in an offense is circumstantial.[48] A careful perusal of the State's evidence reveals that the prosecution had established sufficient motive why appellants killed the victim, independent of any grudge which Navales may have had against the latter. At the time of the incident, appellants Abriol and Dosdos were both BBRC detention prisoners during Navales' term as warden. Abriol and Dosdos were treated as highly favored "trustees" of Navales and were never locked up. Abriol and Dosdos were even allowed to go out of BBRC to do the marketing for the prison's kitchen. Appellant Astellero, a former detention prisoner, was also a recipient of Navales' favors. Navales hired Astellero as his personal driver after the latter served his sentence. Navales and the victim, a former BBRC jailguard, were associates in dealing with prohibited drugs, until they had a falling out allegedly after the victim failed to remit to Navales proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs amounting to P31,000. Appellants apparently killed the victim to return the "special favors" Navales had showered them. Lack of a motive does not necessarily preclude conviction. Persons have been killed or assaulted for no reason at all, and friendship or even relationship is no deterrent to the commission of a crime.[49] | |||||
|
2001-06-20 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Since the alleged culprits for the killing of the victim were not positively identified, motive becomes an important consideration. It has been ruled that motive assumes significance only when there is no showing of who the perpetrator of crime might have been.[41] With the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, it is necessary to prove motive because, if the inculpatory facts are capable of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, it fails to meet the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a conviction.[42] From the records, no motive can be attributed to appellant. | |||||
|
2001-03-16 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Therefore, while treachery qualified the killing to murder, the death penalty should not be imposed considering that there is no other aggravating circumstance. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. There being neither generic aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty to be imposed should be the lower of the two indivisible penalties,[18] which is reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For conviction of an accused in criminal cases, it is enough that the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. Production of the weapon used in committing the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of that burden.[18] It is not vital to the cause of the prosecution,[19] especially where other evidence is available to support sufficiently the charges. As to the presentation of witnesses, the question of which witness to present and when to present him is up to the prosecution, leaving the court thereafter to make the judgment call.[20] In the instant case, the trial court depended on the other evidence to determine the guilt of the accused, especially the eyewitness accounts of Lito Camara, Jr., and Leovilgildo Cartalla. While it is true that the trial court characterized their testimonies as "not too clear on what transpired,"[21] the transcripts nonetheless show that the vagueness refers only to minor or inconsequential details. What is vital is that both eyewitnesses categorically declared that they saw appellant shoot at the occupants of the car and that after appellant ran off, they saw the victims either dead or dying. It is settled that discrepancies in minor details tend to bolster the credibility of witnesses and indicate veracity rather than prevarication, as they erase any suspicion that the witnesses have been coached and the testimony rehearsed.[22] | |||||
|
2001-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Motive is not an essential element of a crime,[22] particularly of murder.[23] Motive assumes relevance only where there is no positive evidence of an accused's direct participation in the commission of a crime,[24] meaning proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an accused's guilt is circumstantial.[25] In the instant case the prosecution's evidence is not circumstantial. The eyewitnesses positively and categorically identified appellant as one of four men who fatally shot the victim. As appellant himself submits, there is no reason why the eyewitnesses should testify falsely against him. The positive identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime by the prosecution eyewitnesses, absent any showing of ill motive on their part must prevail over appellant's alibi.[26] | |||||