PEOPLE V.

DELIM
G.R. No. 142773

FACTS: Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the uncles of Leon and Ronald. Modesto, the victim,
took the surname Delim after he was adopted by the father of Marlon, Manuel and Robert. Modesto’s wife, Rita,
and 16-year old son, Randy, continued using Manalo Bantas as their surname. Modesto and his family and they
resided in Barangay Bila, Sison, Pangasinan.

The 3 accused and Manuel (alias Bong) and Robert, all surnamed Delim, were charged with the crime of murder of
Modesto Delim committed on January 23, 1999.

January 23, 1999 - 6:30PM - Modesto and family were about to have dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald
suddenly barged into the house armed with a short handguns. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and
Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto.[4]
Marlon, Robert and Ronald herded Modesto out of the house on their way towards the direction of Paldit,
Pangasinan. Rita and Randy were warned by the intruders not to leave the house. They were guarded by Leon and
Manuel, who were also armed with short handguns. Leon and Manuel left the house of Modesto only at around 7:00
a.m. the following day.

As soon as Leon and Manuel had left, Randy rushed to the house of his uncle and informed the latter of the incident.
They searched for Modesto to no avail. On January 26, 1999, Randy reported the incident to the police authorities.

January 27, 1999 – 3:00PM - Randy and relatives searched for Modesto again in Paldit, Pangasinan and this time
found Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. He was already dead.

Rita and Randy divulged to the police investigators the names and addresses of Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and
Manuel, whom they claimed were responsible for the death of Modesto, but they were at a loss as to why the five
seized Modesto and killed him.

DEFENSES:

Ronald - he, was at his house in Asan Norte, Sison, Pangasinan about two kilometers away from Modestos house.
Rita and Randy falsely implicated him upon the coaching of Melchor Javier who allegedly had a quarrel with him
concerning politics.

Leon - in the house of his sister in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte where he had been living since 1997. Alibi is corroborated
by boss and sister.

Marlon - on vacation in Dumaguete City from December 26, 1998 up to January 29, 1999

RTC: found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

“JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION beyond reasonable doubt is hereby rendered against Ronald Delim, Marlon
Delim and Leon Delim (for) the commission of Aggravated Murder … the Court sentences Marlon Delim,
Ronald Delim and Leon Delim to suffer the penalty of DEATH”

ISSUE 1: Whether the crime charged in the Information is murder or kidnapping.

HELD 1: The crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not
Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof.

RATIO 1:
I. In determining what crime is charged in an information, the material facts describing the crime charged in relation
to the penal law violated are controlling. If intent of the malefactor is determinative of the crime charged, such
intent must be alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution.

 People v. Isabelo Puno, et al. - for kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual
specific intent of the malefactor is to deprive the offended party of his liberty and not where such restraint
of his freedom of action is merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by
the malefactor.

That means: if the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation of the
victims liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping, as it is merely a preparatory act to the killing. The
"preparatory act" is absorbed by the crime of homicide or murder. What is primordial is the specific intent of the
malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is determinative of what crime the accused
is charged with--that of murder or kidnapping.

II. Court’s Discussion on “Specific Intent”

 What is Specific Intent?

o Specific Intent is the particular purpose or specific intention in doing the prohibited act. It must be
alleged in the Information and proved by the state in a prosecution for a crime requiring specific
intent.
o Proof: by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence; it may be inferred from the circumstances
o Example: Kidnapping and murder are specific intent crimes.
o Relations to MOTIVE: NOT synonymous
 What is Motive?
o Motive is the reason which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity. It is not
an essential element of a crime and hence the prosecution need not prove the same.
o Proof of motive does not show guilt. Absence of proof of such motive does not establish the
innocence of accused for the crime charged such as murder. Why? Because crime is rarely rational.
 Specific Intent v. Motive
o In murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim.
o In kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the victim of his/her liberty.
o In murder, such as where accused kills the victim to avenge the death of a loved one, the motive
is revenge.
o In kidnapping for ransom, the motive is ransom.

III. In this case

 It is evident in the information that the specific intent of accused was to kill him, and that he was taken
from his house in order to kill him. The abduction was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing
him.
 There is no specific allegation in the information that the primary intent of the malefactors was to deprive
Modesto of his freedom or liberty, and that killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping.

----------------------end of Specific Intent portion----------------------

ISSUE 2: whether or not the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove that Marlon,
Ronald and Leon are guilty of murder

HELD 2: Yes, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused, but only for the crime of Homicide because
the prosecution failed to prove the element of treachery to make the crime murder. Also, the Court found that
Leon is a principal by direct participation, even if he did not participate in the killing of Modesto.
RATIO 2:

I. Burden of Proof – prove the corpus delicti, which comprises of a) the criminal act, and b) defendants agency in the
commission of the act

II. Elements of Corpus Delicti

 Wharton - first, the objective; second, the subjective element

 In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party
alleged to be dead; (b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased
and was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the criminal
act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which produced the death.
 If murder is to be proved, there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the victim
was deliberately killed (with malice); it may be proved by looking at:
o use of weapons
o nature of wounds
o location of wounds
o number of wounds
o words uttered by accused

III. Circumstantial Evidence

 proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience
 How to use Circumstantial Evidence
o (a) there is more than one circumstance
o (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established
o (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
 Burden of evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of the prosecution if prosecution
presents circumstantial evidence.
 In this case, the prosecution used circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden of proving the
guilt of accused-appellants of murder.

IV. Not Murder But Homicide

 Qualifying circumstances such as treachery and abuse of superior strength must be alleged and proved
clearly and conclusively as the crime itself.
 Treachery – elements:
o (a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate
o (b) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously adopted.
 To take advantage of superior strength - purposely use force that is out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked
 In this case, prosecution provided no evidence as to the particulars of how he was assaulted and killed –
no proof of acts constituting treachery or abuse of superior strength.

V. Other Matters

 Credibility of Witnesses
 Even if the statements of Rita and Randy were inconsistent, the Court found that such inconsistencies is
insufficient for the desired impeachment the testimonies. The inconsistencies were found to "bear the
earmarks of truth and sincerity" -- they responded with consistency upon material details that could only
come from a firsthand knowledge of the events.
 Medico Legal was also used as evidence
While it is true that the prosecution failed to prove motive on the part of the accused, the prosecution was
able to show, from testimonies of the witnesses and the medico legal report of the cadaver of Modesto
that Marlon and Ronald committed the murder.
 Leon as a Principal by Direct Participation
Leon, while he did not participate in the killing of Modesto, still stood by the door to prevent Modesto's
family from leaving the house. He on may not have been at the situs criminis when Modesto was killed, but
still, he is a principal by direct participation.
“No matter how wide may be the separation of the conspirators, if they are all engaged in a common plan
for the execution of a felony and all take their part in furtherance of the common design, all are liable as
principals. Actual presence is not necessary if there is a direct connection between the actor and the crime.”

REFERENCES:

1. Information:

That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the house of Modesto
Delim and once inside with intent to kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring with one another, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought out and
abduct Modesto Delim, accused Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house guarded and prevented the wife
and son of Modesto Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of superior strength stabbed and killed said
Modesto Delim, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.