PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

DANNY DELOS SANTOS Y

FERNANDEZ, appellant.
G.R. No. 135919. May 9, 2003
FACTS:
● Upon one of the statements of the witness (Marcelino De Leon), he saw that Rod
Flores was drinking gin with some men. As he was about to fetch water, he suddenly
sees appellant emerged from the back of Flores and stabbed him multiple times and
ceased only after he saw him dead.
● Dr. Caballero declared that Flores suffered 21 stab wounds and 11of which were fatal
and said that it was possible that appellant was behind Flores considering the stab
wounds inflicted in his back.
● But appellant denied the accusation and said that on the exact time, he was in his
Auntie’s house 40 meters away from the scene of the crime and it was seconded by a
certain Sonny Bautista and watched television.
● Appellant also said that earlier that day, they met when he is fetching water but there is
no altercation between them hence, he couldn’t understand why there are testimonies
against him. But the appellant contends that there were inconsistencies as to the
testimony of the witness and they failed to prove that appellant has a motive to kill
Flores.
● Trial court held that Danny Delos Santos found guilty of the crime of murder with the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.
ISSUE:
● Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of murder with
qualifying circumstance of treachery based on the testimony of the alleged eyewitness
since there was inconsistencies in them.
RULING:
● The court said that the inconsistencies were understandable since they are drinking
gin at the time the crime happened. Many the time the court ruled that inconsistencies
in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral
matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of
their testimony. What is important is that the two witnesses were one in saying that it
was the appellant who stabbed Flores with a knife.
● When appellant argues that since the witnesses said that there was no altercation
between him and Flores, it now follows that there is no motive to kill but the court
said no! 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.
● Therefore, the Court affirmed the Trial Courts decision since the prosecution was able
to establish that appellant's attack on Flores was from behind without any slightest
provocation on his part and that it was sudden and unexpected- a clear case of
treachery. 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. There being treachery, appellant's conviction for murder is in order.