THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMO DIVA and CESARIA DIVA, defendants-appellants; G.R. No. L-22946 April 29, 1968

Accused Diva killed deceased with a bolo. Wife acquitted. Self-defense theory not entertained. Motive was immaterial since accused was positively identified.

TOPIC: Motive

Convicted: Maximo Diva and Cesaria Diva

Crime: Murder

MOTIVE; NOT ESSENTIAL WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO IDENTITY OF CULPRIT OR WHERE OFFENDER HAD ADMITTED THE DEED. — The question of what motive is sufficient to impel one to commit a particular act is always relative and no fixed norm of conduct can be said to be decisive of every imaginable case. But motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit or where the offender had admitted the deed; and the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is completely inconsequential. Where, as in this case, the identity of the appellant as the author of the killing is not disputed as he admitted having killed the deceased, his motive in committing the act becomes irrelevant to his conviction and the failure of the State to establish his motive is of no moment.

FACTS:

1. Ananias Bano was a resident of Himinsolan until his wife died. He then took Just Senor as his common-law wife in 1961. He used to visit the land of his deceased wife which adjoins the land of appellant, Maximo's father, about 150 meters to the house of the accused spouses.

2. Same year, boundary dispute arose between the deceased and appellant Maximo who was then the caretaker of his father's land, which dispute was eventually brought to court and which was still pending in the Court of First Instance of Cebu at the time the incident in question happened.

3. After the case has been filed, victim Bano attended a wedding in Barrio Santiago when upon his return, he was ambushed by appellant Maximo Diva and his younger brother, both armed with bolos but nothing serious happened because there was timely intervention of persons then around. Nothing happened between them after that.

4. June 3, 1962, deceased and his wife made a pilgrimage to offer thanksgiving to the Lord after being healed from their illness, and Justa's delivery that endangered her life.  Maximo and Cesaria Diva, husband and wife, with evident premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of superior strength, attacked the said Ananias Bano with bolo weapons inflicting eight wounds on the victim, two of which were fatal which caused his death. 

5. Accused Maximo surrender the next day in Poro, the next town.

6. Maximo claims he killed the deceased but for self-defense when deceased came and attacked Maximo from behind using his own long, sharp, double-pointed bolo.

7. Cesaria denied her participation and claimed she was shouting for help during the fight.

8. RTC found them guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Ananias Bano in the sum of P6,000.00,

9. They appealed to SC.

ISSUE:

W/N RTC erred in holding them guilty of conspiring to kill the deceased.

In holding that the motive was a land case.

RULING:

Yes. There was no conspiracy, treachery, and evident premeditation. Cesaria was ruled to not having participated. The accused's self-defense theory was rejected.T

SC HELD CESARIA DIVA ACQUITTED.

SC did not believe testimony of of Justa Señor, common-law wife of the deceased, and of Rosalio Dagatan  that Cesaria Diva can sneak behind the deceased and hacked him because Cristina Dagatan positively declared that Rosalio and Justa arrived at the place of incident only after the struggle, AND that Cesaria is in her six or seven months pregnancy. Given her condition, it is doubtful she can take part in the struggle between two men.

The evidence shows Maximo Diva waited behind shrubs armed with bolo, probably without his wife's knowledge, and suddenly attacked the deceased as declared by grandaunt of Maximo. 

Also, minutes before deceased Bano expired, he was able to tell his wife that it was Maximo and Cesaria who hacked him. He made this statement right after Maximo left him and as soon as his wife and others arrived.

The victim's statement immediately after receiving the wounds naming the accused as the author of the aggression is legal evidence as part of the res gestae (People vs. Quimson, 62 Phil. 162).

Also, Maximo's father is the interested party in the land case, not Maximo himself and even it was what motivated the latter, it was still immaterial. Motive is unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit, or where the offender has admitted the deed, and failure of the prosecution to established motive is completely inconsequential. (People vs. Villalba, L-17243, Aug. 23, 1966; People vs. Serdenia L-18032, April 30, 1966.)

Maximo's identity as the killer was undisputed. Thus, his motive in the commission is irrelevant to his conviction and failure of prosecution to establish his motivation is of no moment. He admitted the crime. Consequently, the finding of the trial court that the motive of appellant Maximo Diva in committing the offense was a land case is a harmless error, if at all, and does not affect the correctness of its decision finding him guilty of murder.

SC Ruling:

Maximo is Guilty of homicide, with the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 10 years of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, to be credited with one-half (1/2) of the preventive imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of Ananias Bano in the sum of P6,000.00.

-----

ADDITIONAL INFO:

Evident premeditation

(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; 

(2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and 

(3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow him to reflect (People vs. Leano, 36 Off. Gaz. No. 53, p. 1120).