LETICIA I. KUMMER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent; G.R. No. 174461, September 11, 2013

Deceased knocked at the accused’s door and the former subsequently received gunshots causing his death; motive, irrelevant

TOPIC: MOTIVE

RATIONALE:

Motive is irrelevant when the accused has been positively identified by an eyewitness. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the assailant is in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the author of the crime.

CRIME CHARGED:  HOMICIDE

FACTS:

1. RTC found Leticia Kummer and her Son Johan guilty of homicide by the testimonies of prosecution eyewitnesses Ramon Cuntapay and Malana who both testified that the petitioner shot Mallo. This was coupled by positive findings of gunpowder nitrates on the left hand of Johan and on the petitioner’s right hand, as well as the corroborative testimony of the other prosecution witnesses.

2. Johan, who shot Mallo, was still a minor at that time, was released on the recognizance of his father, Moises Kummer. Johan subsequently left the country without notifying the court; hence, only the petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction with the CA.

3. 

Petitioner  appealed to CA

CA – REJECTED petitioner’s arguments

RTC Committed errors: (1) in giving credence to the testimonial evidence of Cuntapay and of Malana despite the discrepancies between their sworn statements and direct testimonies;   (2) in not considering the failure of the prosecution to cite the petitioner’s motive in killing the victim;   (3) in failing to consider that the writer of the decision, Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, was not the judge who heard the testimonies; and (4) in considering the paraffin test results finding the petitioner positive for gunpowder residue.

(1) discrepancies between the sworn statement and the direct testimony of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit them because the contradictions are minimal and reconcilable.   (2) proof of motive is only necessary when a serious doubt arises on the identity of the accused.   (3) That the writer of the decision was not the judge who heard the testimonies of the witnesses does not necessarily make the decision erroneous.   (4) Malana and Cuntapay’s positive identification and the corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution more than sufficient to convict the petitioner of the crime charged.

ISSUE:

W/N lack of motive can acquit the accused from the crime of Homicide.

RULING:

NO. Motive is irrelevant when the accused has been positively identified by an eyewitness.

Motive gains importance only when the identity of the assailant is in doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the author of the crime.

Malana and Cuntapay have been eyewitnesses to the crime and both confirmed in their direct testimony before the RTC that they saw the petitioner fire a gun at Mallo which they again re-affirmed during their cross-examination.

If what was stated in open court are but details or additional facts that serve to supplement the declarations made in the affidavit, these statements cannot be ruled out as inconsistent and may be considered by the court.

Thus, in light of the direct and positive identification of the petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the crime by not one but two prosecution eyewitnesses, the failure to cite the motive of the petitioner is of no moment.

At any rate, we find it noteworthy that the lack or absence of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction where there are reliable witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the petitioner as the perpetrator of the felony, such as in this case.

SC ruling: Prosecution has proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence has been successfully overcome. 

CA's decision convicting petitioner of the crime of homicide is AFFIRMED.