G.R. No. 132078 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ARTEMIO BERZUELA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused, Artemio Berzuela Y Paez, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder penalized under No. 1, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, to pay the heirs of Rogelio Daras Y Aguirre the sum of P9,300.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity by reason of such death in accordance with current jurisprudence. [13] Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant alleges that THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTIONS STAR WITNESS. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. [14] First. Accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish motive on his part. It is incredible, according to him, that he would kill somebody who never offended him. [15] The contention is without merit. Motive is not an element of a crime and need not be proved to produce a conviction. [16] Such becomes relevant only when the identity of the person who committed the crime is in dispute. But when there is positive identification of the accused, proof of motive can be dispensed with. [17] In this case, Robert Guelos positively identified accused-appellant as his uncles assailant, first in the affidavit he executed a day after the killing, and later during his testimony in court on March 21, 1996. He pointed to accused-appellant as the person who shot the victim after opening the window in the kitchen of Efren Guelos house. Robert knew accused-appellant because the latter, although a resident of Barangay Patlad, had relatives in Barangay Pulao whom he often visited. The place where the victim was shot was sufficiently lighted by Petromax and kerosene lamps. Robert said that the light from the kerosene lamp, which was placed on the table near the window, enabled him to recognize accused-appellant as it illuminated him from the waist up, especially his face. Robert was just four meters from the window where accused-appellant was when the latter fired the fatal shot. He said his view of the window was not obstructed by the fact that the victim was in front of him. As the deceased was about a meter from him, Robert could see the other parts of the house, including the window in the kitchen. Accused-appellant cites the case of People v. Vasquez. [18] The facts of that case, however, are different. In that case, the Court acquitted the two accused of murder because not only did the autopsy findings fail to corroborate the testimonies of the supposed eyewitnesses to the killing but the latters testimonies contained inconsistencies and improbabilities which undermined their credibility. In addition, the defense was able to show that the witnesses had reason to falsely implicate the accused in the killing. In view of these circumstances, the Court held that proof of motive was indispensable. [19] On the other