The existence of a motive on the part of appellant becomes decisive in determining the probability and credibility of his version

that the shooting was purely accidental. Proof of motive is not relevant when there is no other evidence as to the identity of the offender. GR L-12268: People vs Juan Martinez Godinez 106 Phil 597 FACTS: On the morning of May 4, 1956, the Spanish Consul Horencio Millaruelo was shot by Godinez. Godinez said that it was an accident. He claimed that he wants to show the consul some papers that were in his drawer. He keeps a pistol in the same drawer and has placed it on top of the papers he intended to show the consul. When he lifted the pistol, holding it in a rather unnatural position, so he can easily pull the papers out. It was found that there was a live bullet left inside the pistol and the pistol was previously cocked (appellant claims that the gun was always cocked from the time he got its license in 1947). While in that position, the pistol exploded, and hit the victim who was facing him. The Court of First Instance of Manila did not find the appellants explanation tenable. It then charged him with the crime of murder of Spanish Consul Horencio Millaruelo. ISSUE: WON proof of motive is needed for the accused to become convicted of murder. HELD: YES. Based on the facts and pieces of evidence, the appellant has intended to kill the victim. There was no accidental shooting and Godinez has the motive to commit such crime. The victim was a strict person who does his job properly. It was found out that Godinez, who was the general manager, treasurer and disbursing officer of the Spanish consulate, was given full trust and confidence by the different consuls. He took this as an advantage and misappropriated some funds, amounting to P43,334.92. Also, his superiors has labeled him as indispensable and that he had more right to occupy the position of acting consul, whenever the titular consul was on leave. However, when the titular consul was on leave, Godinez was not appointed as the acting consul. Instead, it was Millaruelo who was appointed for the position. Godinez found this unfair and even wrote to his former chief about the unjust designation. Millaruelo eventually found out about the misappropriated funds and had a violent discussion with Godinez in the latters room two days before the shooting incident. This alone points that Godinez has a motive. Godinez contends that the existence of a motive would not be proof that he actually committed the offense. He even raised the case of People vs Marcos where it was ruled that the existence of a motive alone though perhaps an important consideration, is not proof of the commission of the crime, much less of the guilt of the defendantsappellants. The Supreme Court states that may be an important consideration but it does not prove the commission of the crime and he guilt of the appellant. The Supreme Court states that such ruling only applies when there is no other evidence as to the identity of the offender. In the Marcos case, the motive of the accused was established but the identity of the person responsible for his death was not satisfactorily proved. In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased died as a consequence of a bullet wound which was discharged by appellant from his pistol. The existence of a motive on the part of appellant becomes decisive in determining the probability and credibility of his version that the shooting was purely accidental.