PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y

FERNANDEZ, appellant.
Automatic review to the SC bec of the death penalty
May 9, 2003
Digest by: Ces
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Short version: Delos Santos was charged and convicted for the murder of Rod Flores.
He was sentenced to the death penalty. On automatic review to the SC, he claimed that
there was no proof of his motive because he did not have any previous argument or
altercation with Flores. The SC held 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.

Facts:

Danny delos Santos was charged with murder. The information alleged that the above-
named accused, armed with a kitchen knife, with intent to kill one Rod Flores y Juanitas,
with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said
kitchen knife said Rod Flores y Juanitas, hitting him on the different parts of his body,
thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused his death.

He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses who claimed they saw delos
Santos emerge from behind Flores then he stabbed stab Flores twice. Flores ran but
delos Santos ran after him and stabbed him repeatedly. Delos Santos only ceased
stabbing after he saw Flores dead. The doctor also testified that Flores suffered 21 stab
wounds, 11 of which were fatal.

Delos Santos denied the accusation and claimed that he was at his aunties house at the
time of the crime and that he was around 40 meters away from the scene of the crime.
He claimed that he and Flores met but did not greet each other and that there was no
altercation between them.

The trial court found delos guilty of the crime of murder with the qualifying circumstance
of treachery. The court took into account the brutality in the manner by which the life of
the victim was taken. He was sentenced to death by legal injection.

The case was brought to the SC by automatic review. Delos Santos claims that there was
no evidence that he had a motive to kill Flores, considering that they had not previous
heated argument or altercation.

Issue (relevant to topic): Whether the lack of motive is relevant

Main issue in case: The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses (Held/Ratio: The inconsistencies were only minor because they were only with
regard to the time, etc., and they still proved that delos Santos stabbed Flores)

Ratio:
No it is not. 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. In People vs. Galano, the SC 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
this case, the prosecution witnesses (De Leon and Tablate) positively identified the
accused.

The fact that the statements of the witnesses were taken 2 months after the incident is
immaterial. It is but natural for witnesses to avoid being involved in a criminal
proceeding particularly when the crime committed is of such gravity as to show the
cruelty of the perpetrator. Born of human experience, the fear of retaliation can have a
paralyzing effect to the witnesses.

The court disregarded his defense of alibi. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be
convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of
the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident. The required impossibility
does not exist here.

Positive identification, where categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-
motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and
denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-
serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. Delos Santos did not present any
evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses, in testifying against him, have
improper motive.

The prosecution was able to establish that appellants attack on Flores was from behind
without any slightest provocation on his part and that it was sudden and unexpected.
Where the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no
weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be described as treacherous.