You are on page 1of 4

"Specific must be alleged; distinguished from motive; how

People v Delim"
2 kinds of intent
1. General Criminal Intent (GCI)
2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI)

GCI is presumed by law by mere doing of the act. Therefore, the prosecution does not
have the burden to prove it.
SCI is just like an element, an ingredient of the commission of the crim. Therefore, it
must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Ex. Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide. A and B were fighting.
A was losing and so A shot B. B was hit on the left arm. He was brought to the hospital.
Thereafter, after Bs release from the hospital, he filed a case against A for attempted
homicide. Since the case is filed attempted homicide. The prosecution has the burden
of proving the intent to kill on the part of A when he shot B and hit him on the left arm.
Otherwise, if the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can
only be convicted of serious/less serious/ slight physical injuries depending on the date
required for medical intervention or he should be acquitted of the crime. INTENT TO

But what if in the course of their fight. A was losing and so A took out his pistol and he
shot B. B was shot on the heart, a fatal wound, a mortal wound was sustained because
it was a vital organ which was hit. A immediately brought B to the hospital. However
upon arrival, he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a case for
homicide against A. As defense, I have no intention to kill B. According to him , he only
intended to threaten B because they were fighting. Will this defense lie?
>As defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie. The reason is since the victim
died, intent to kill becomes GCI. Prosecution need not prove intent to kill in homicide,
parricide, infanticide, or murder because the victim was already killed. It is only in
attempted and frustrated stages of the said crimes wherein intent to kill is considered an

Why is it presumed that intent to kill is only in the consummated stage?

>Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is that the victim died

MOTIVE the moving power which impels a person to do an act to achieve the desired
As a rule, motive is not material in determining the criminal liability if the offender is
identified, admits to the commission to the crime, if the prosecution has direct evidence
or eyewitness to the commission of the crime, if the crime committed is culpable felony,
and crime committed is not a special law.

Exceptions: intent becomes material in determining the criminal liability of the offender

1. When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes

2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful

When there is so many suspects that there is doubt on who

the crime

3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial evidence to prove the

commission of the crime

*Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about conviction. But Motive +
circumstantial evidence, or motive + supporting evidence = conviction

How intent is established? How motive is established?

Ex. A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the head of A with it. B
hit it hard and thereafter ran away. A went to the hospital, however, based on the
medical certificate no injury whatsoever was sustained by the head of A. So there was
no injury. Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against B. Therefore,
intent to kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution because the case filed is
attempted homicide. Will B be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to
>There was no intent to kill. Intent to kill is determined by the following factors:

1. The nature and number of the weapon used by the offender in the commission
of the crime
2. The nature, number and location of wounds inflicted/sustained by the victim
3. The manner of committing the crime
4. The acts, deeds or words stated by the offender before, during or immediately
after the commission of the crime
5. Proof of the victim

Use a particular means to achieve a Moving power which impels a person to
desired result
do a specific act to achieve a desired
result, therefore it is the reason behind
the intent
Material element in determining the Immaterial to determine criminal liability
criminal liability of the accused
of the offender
Established/proven by the overt act of the Established by acts/statements made by
offender or by means employed
the accused prior or immediately after the
commission of the crime
People v. Delim G.R. No. 142773. January 28, 2003
Facts: Marlon, Leon & Ronald Delim were convicted for murder of Modesto Delim,
resident of Bila, Sison, Pangasinan. Modesto is the adopted child of Marlons Dad.
Marlon, Manuel & Robert are brothers & Leon & Ronald are their nephews. Around 6:30
pm, January 23, 1999, Modesto and family were preparing to eat dinner when Marlon,
Robert and Ronald arrived. Marlon poked gun, other two grabbed, hog tied and gagged
Modesto. They herded him out of the hose and went to the direction of Paldit. Leon and
Manual guarded Rita & Randy until 7 am and told them to stay put. They searched for
him for 3 days and reported to police three days after the incident. Randy with relatives
found Modesto in the housing project in Paldit under bushes. He was dead due to
gunshot wound on head.

WON prosecution had sufficient evidence?
>Yes. Prosecution proved intent to kill with their knives and handguns, 5 gunshot
wounds and 4 stab wounds (defensive). Furthermore, the pieces of circumstantial
evidence were convincing: Rita and Randy testified events. Rita claimed she heard 3

gunshots and accordingly, decomposing body was found with gunshot wounds and
WON witness testimonies were valid?
>Yes. Inconsistencies mean and even strengthen. It was not rehearsed
WON alibi warranted?
>No. Positive identification over alibi. Unable to prove that they were in another place
and impossible to go to crime scene

WON there was conspiracy?

>Yes. Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree and decide to commit a felony.
This is proven by acts of criminal. Before during and after crime committed and that
accused had same purpose and united in execution; act of one act of all. Wharton
criminal lawactual presence not necessary if theres direct connection bet actor and

*What negates criminal intent? What may be the defense against criminal intent?