04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly deformed slug found near the body of the deceased Richard Lino, nor to the other slug extracted from Clemente, and that no ballistics examination was conducted to determine from what caliber they were fired and if the gun used was the same. Investigators did not even cause the surrender of accused-appellant's firearms for examination and comparison. Neither were accused-appellants required to undergo a paraffin test. Nonetheless, a ballistics examination is not indispensable, and even if another weapon was in fact actually used in killing the victim, still the accused cannot excape criminal liability therefor as he was already positively identified.[18] Because credible witnesses had already demonstrated accused-appellants' culpability, there was no need to present further evidence linking them to the crime. There is no requirement of a certain quantum of evidence before one may be justly convicted of an offense except when specifically required by law. The only requisite then is that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.[19] Accused-appellants insist that they had no motive to shoot the victims and/or the complaining witnesses. However, even the absence of a known motive, the timehonored rule is that motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit.[20] Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the participation of the accused therein are definitely shown,[21] particularly when we consider how nowadays, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have killed or committed serious offense for no reason at all.[22] The defense also tried, but failed, to establish that Cogasi and Clemente knew beforehand that Bangcado and Banisa were policemen as they all lived and worked together in the same neighborhood. This allegation is not sufficient to prove that the witnesses for the prosecution had any ill motive to testify against accusedappellants. When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against an accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.[23] The defense also assails the conclusion reached by the trial court that the accused were guilty because they remained silent when they were pinpointed by Cogasi during the police line-up. The trial court asked, "Is it not that 'Qui tacen concentire videtur,' meaning, 'Silence means consent'?"[24] Although the Rules of Court provides that an act or declaration made in the presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to do so, may be given in evidence against him, [25] courts should be cautious in interpreting silence against the accused. Further, the facts do not support the conclusion that the accused remained silent. Both Bangcado and Banisa gave their individual reactions during the line-up but police discipline kept them from breaking rank.[26] As police officers, they are bound by the strict discipline of their profession, as well as an awareness of their rights to remain silent and to avail of the services of counsel. These rights are not diminished by the fact that they are policemen. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/37955 6/16