People v. Delim

At about 6:30 p.m. on January 23, 1999, in Barangay Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, Modesto Delim was about to have supper with his wife Rita, their 16-year-old son Randy and two young grandchildren. Modesto was an Igorot carpenter who had taken the Delim surname after being "adopted" by the father of Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim. Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim, each armed with a short handgun, barged in. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and Ronald hog-tied and gagged him, and the three took him out of the house towards Paldit. Leon and Manuel Delim, also armed, stayed by the door, ordered Rita and Randy to stay where they were and left only at 7 a.m. the next day. The family searched for Modesto for days and reported to the police on January 26. On January 27 his decomposing body was found under thick bushes in a housing project about 200 meters from the house. He had five gunshot wounds and seven defensive stab wounds, and died of a gunshot wound to the head. The accused could not be found at their homes after the incident. Marlon, Ronald and Leon were caught. Robert and Manuel remained at large. The three pleaded denial and alibi. The RTC of Urdaneta convicted them of murder qualified by treachery, with abuse of superior strength, nighttime and use of unlicensed firearms as aggravating circumstances, and sentenced them to death. The case came up on automatic review.

1. 1Whether the information charged kidnapping or murder, given its allegations that the accused seized, hog-tied, gagged and abducted the victim.
2. 2Whether circumstantial evidence proved that the accused killed the victim, despite the absence of any proof of motive.
3. 3Whether Leon, who only stood guard at the house, was liable as a conspirator and principal.
4. 4Whether treachery, abuse of superior strength and the other circumstances were properly appreciated.

Guilty of homicide, not murder (Callejo, Sr., J., en banc). The crime charged was murder. What an information charges is determined by the material facts recited, and where specific intent determines the crime, it must be alleged and proved. Under People v. Puno and United States v. Ancheta, kidnapping requires proof that the actual specific intent was to deprive the victim of liberty. Where the primary and ultimate purpose is to kill, the incidental detention or forcible taking, even for an appreciable time, is only a preparatory act absorbed in the killing. The information showed on its face that the accused seized Modesto precisely to kill him, and it did not allege that depriving him of liberty was their primary intent. Specific intent is not motive. In murder the specific intent is to kill. Motive, the reason that prompts the act, is not an element and need not be proved. Intent to kill may be shown by the weapons used, the nature, number and location of the wounds, and words uttered before, during or after the killing. Five gunshot wounds and seven stab wounds sufficed. With no eyewitness to the killing, the Court relied on circumstantial evidence under Rule 133, Section 4. The armed seizure, the gagging and hog-tying, the discovery of the putrefying body 200 meters away within the time that decomposition indicated, and the flight of all the accused formed an unbroken chain. The burden of evidence shifted to the accused to explain what became of the victim after they took him, and they offered only denial and alibi. Conspiracy was shown by synchronized acts. Leon's tasks were to act as lookout and keep Rita and Randy from seeking help until the killing was done. He was a principal by direct participation even though he was not at the scene of the killing. Minor inconsistencies in Rita's and Randy's testimony did not impair their credibility, and the alibis were weak. But qualifying circumstances must be proved as clearly as the crime itself. Although Modesto was defenseless when seized, no evidence showed how he was attacked, so treachery could not be presumed. Abuse of superior strength requires proof that the assailants deliberately used their combined strength, and being more numerous and armed is not enough. Use of unlicensed firearms and dwelling were not alleged in the information, and Rule 110, Section 8 applied retroactively as favorable to the accused. With no modifying circumstance, each was sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. They were ordered to pay jointly and severally P50,000 civil indemnity, P50,000 moral damages and P25,000 exemplary damages.