Supreme Court: Mere "proof of motive" NOT enough evidence to send accused to prison
Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor.
The witnesses who testified against appellant Macatangay were unmistakably biased. Florentino Estiron was father of the deceased. And even if we give credence to his statement respecting Macatangay's motive, in the absence of adequate proof establishing complicity, still Macatangay cannot be convicted. Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor. (G.R. No. L-12942 February 29, 1960)
The witnesses who testified against appellant Macatangay were unmistakably biased. Florentino Estiron was father of the deceased. And even if we give credence to his statement respecting Macatangay's motive, in the absence of adequate proof establishing complicity, still Macatangay cannot be convicted. Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor. (G.R. No. L-12942 February 29, 1960)
