People v. Arpon

 

People v. Arpon

G.R. No. 229859

June 10, 2019

FACTS:

                The evidence for the prosecution revealed that, at 3:00 a.m. on May 27, 2010, the victim, Rodolfo R. Moriel (Rodolfo) and Bernardo S. Insigne (Bernardo) were headed home walking side by side ( from Baran gay Guindaohan, Barugo, Leyte where they attended the vespers, to Barangay Sagkahan, Carigara, Leyte where they resided - a 30 minute-walk) when they were accosted by accused-appellant Arpon. Using a short bladed weapon, Arpon stabbed Rodolfo on the left chest. Rodolfo tried to run, but he was stabbed for a second time on the right chest by Arpon until he fell to the ground. Fearing for his own life, Bernardo fled the scene. On the same day, Bernardo went to the police accompanied by Melita and reported the incident. Rodolfo died due to hypovolemic shock resulting from acute blood loss caused by three multiple stab wounds - two of which were deemed fatal. His family incurred P40,000.00 as burial and funeral expenses.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the accused should be held liable for murder.

HELD:

                No. In order to successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be established: (a) that a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her; ( c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 24853 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and ( d) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In the instant case, Rodolfo and Bernardo were walking side by side when they were accosted by accused-appellant who suddenly stabbed Rodolfo with a short bolo. Both Rodolfo and Bernardo were unarmed and were totally unaware of the impending assault from the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's argument that he should be acquitted since the prosecution had not established motive as to why he would attack and kill Rodolfo does not persuade because: motive is not an essential element of a crime and hence the prosecution need not prove the same. As a general rule, proof of motive for the commission of the offense charged does not show guilt and absence of proof of such motive does not establish the innocence of the accused for the crime charged such as murder. The history of crimes shows that murders are generally committed from motives comparatively trivial. Crime is rarely rational. In murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim.