People vs.

Delim

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL DELIM alias "BONG" (At Large),
ROBERT DELIM (At Large), and RONALD DELIM alias "BONG", accused-
appellants.

This case is with regard to Art 8 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code
"the act of one is the act of all"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Delim

G.R. No. 142773 28January2003

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46 (Urdaneta
City) finding the appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them
to death for the murder of Modesto Bantas.

Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are
“related” for modesto is an adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999
Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and poked a gun at
modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel Delim both armed
stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put.

Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald,
and Leon used denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge.
*alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and difficult to
disprove

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the
crime?

Yes there is:

CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a
felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same
quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of
commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in
its executed.
appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were
synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill
Modesto

There is no:
TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:
a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity
to defend himself
b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted
in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto
was assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be
proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless during the
time that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants.
Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not
constitute proof that the three took advantage of their numerical superiority and
their handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed.

HELD:
APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
FELONY OF HOMICIDE (THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE
MODIFIED TO LOWER THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)