386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delim

*
G.R. No. 142773. January 28, 2003.

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.

Criminal Law; Where the specific intent of the malefactor is

determinative of the crime charged such specific intent must be alleged in
the information and proved by the prosecution.—It bears stressing that in
determining what crime is charged in an information, the material
inculpatory facts recited therein describing the crime charged in relation to
the penal law violated are controlling. Where the specific intent of the
malefactor is determinative of the crime charged such specific intent must
be alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution.

Same; Specific intent must be alleged in the Information and proved by

the state in a prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent; Specific
intent may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.—
Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which exists where
circumstances indicate that an offender actively desired certain criminal
consequences or objectively desired a specific result to follow his act or
failure to act. Specific intent involves a state of the mind. It is the particular
purpose or specific intention in doing the prohibited act. Specific intent must
be alleged in the Information and proved by the state in a prosecution for a
crime requiring specific intent. Kidnapping and murder are specific intent
crimes. Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from the circumstances of the
actions of the accused as established by the evidence on record.

Same; Specific intent is not synonymous with motive; As a general rule,

proof of motive for the commission of the offense charged does not show
guilt and absence of proof of such motive does not establish the innocence
of accused for the crime charged such as murder.—Specific intent is not
synonymous with motive. Motive generally is referred to as the reason
which prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal activity.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and hence the prosecution
need not prove the same. As a general rule, proof of motive for the
commission of the offense charged does not show guilt and absence of proof
of

_______________

* EN BANC.

387

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003 387

People vs. Delim

such motive does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime
charged such as murder.

Same; Evidence; In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution is burdened

to prove the guilt of the accused beyond cavil of doubt.—In criminal
prosecutions, the prosecution is burdened to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond cavil of doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The proof
against the accused must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment.

Same; Same; Circumstantial Evidence; Requisites for Circumstantial

Evidence to be Sufficient Basis for Conviction.—What was once a rule of
account respectability is now entombed in Section 4, Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules of Evidence which states that circumstantial evidence,
sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence, is sufficient as
anchor for a judgment of conviction if the following requisites concur: “x x
x if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all
the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.”

Same; Same; Conspiracy; There is conspiracy when two or more

persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; To establish
conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime.—There is conspiracy 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. Conspiracy is not
presumed. It may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence. Conspiracy is deducible from the acts of the malefactors before,
during and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a joint
purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiment. To establish
conspiracy, 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 the
commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united
in its execution. If conspiracy is established, the act of one is deemed the act
of all. It matters not who among the accused actually shot and killed the
victim.

Same; Same; Variations on the testimony of witnesses on the same side

with respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do not impair the
weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts.—A truth-telling
witness is not always expected give an error-free testimony considering the
lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. What is primordial

388

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delim

is that the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing of
statements dilute neither the witness’ credibility nor the veracity of his
testimony. Variations on the testimony of witnesses on the same side with
respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do not impair the weight of
their united testimony to the prominent facts. Inconsistencies on minor and
trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of
witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.

Same; Same; The testimony of a witness should be construed in its

entirety and not in truncated terms.—The testimony of a witness should be
construed in its entirety and not in truncated terms and the true meaning of
answers to isolated questions propounded to a witness is to be ascertained
by due consideration of all the questions propounded to the witness and his
answers thereto.

Same; Same; Alibi; The defense of alibi is one of the weakest of

defenses in criminal prosecution because the same is easy to concoct
between relatives, friends and even those not related to the offender.—Case
law has it that the defense of alibi is one of the weakest of defenses in
criminal prosecution because the same is easy to concoct between relatives,
friends and even those not related to the offender. It is hard for the
prosecution to disprove. For alibi to merit approbation by the trial court and
this Court, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are burdened to prove with clear and
convincing evidence that they were in a place other than the situs criminis at
the time of the commission of the crime; that it was physically impossible
for them to have committed the said crime. They failed to discharge their
burden.
 Same; Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery and abuse of
superior strength must be alleged and proved clearly and conclusively as
the crime itself.—Qualifying circumstances such as treachery and abuse of
superior strength must be alleged and proved clearly and conclusively as the
crime itself. Mere conjectures, suppositions or presumptions are utterly
insufficient and cannot produce the effect of qualifying the crime. As this
Court held: “No matter how truthful these suppositions or presumptions
may seem, they must not and cannot produce the effect of aggravating the
condition of defendant.”

Same; Same; Same; Elements for Treachery to be Appreciated as a

Qualifying Circumstance.—For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, the prosecution is burdened to prove the following elements:
(a) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the means of execution is
deliberately or consciously adopted.

389

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003 389

People vs. Delim

Same; Same; Same; To take advantage of superior strength means to

purposely use force that is out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked.—To take advantage of superior strength
means to purposely use force that is out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked. What is primordial, this Court held
in People v. Rogelio Francisco is that the assailants deliberately took
advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the crime. It
is necessary to show that the malefactors cooperated in such a way as to
secure advantage from their superiority in strength.

VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:

Criminal Procedure; Evidence; Alibi; The defense of alibi, being one

that can easily be fabricated, is inherently weak and cannot be expected to
withstand the positive identification made by credible witnesses.—Between
the positive identification made by the eyewitnesses and the bare denial of
appellants, there is scarcely any serious doubt but that decisive weight must
be given to the positive testimony of Randy Manalo Bantas. The defense of
alibi, being one that can easily be fabricated, is inherently weak and cannot
be expected to withstand the positive identification made by credible
witnesses.

Same; Same; Motive; While the motive of an accused in a criminal

case might generally be immaterial, not being an element of the crime,
motive could be important and consequential when the evidence on the
commission of the crime would be short of moral certainty.—In arriving at
its verdict convicting appellants for “aggravated murder,” the trial court
considered the act of the accused of forcibly taking Modesto Delim from his
house as being likewise enough to substantiate the killing of the victim. The
conclusion could rightly be assailed. The accounts of Randy and his mother
Rita would indicate that the forcible taking of Modesto was carried out in
absolute silence, with not one of the five intruders uttering any word which
could give a clue on the reason for the abduction and, more particularly,
whether the same was carried out for the purpose of killing Modesto. The
two witnesses were unaware of any existing grudge between the malefactors
and the victim that could have prompted them to violently snuff out the life
of the latter. While the motive of an accused in a criminal case might
generally be immaterial, not being an element of the crime, motive could be
important and consequential when the evidence on the commission of the
crime would be short of moral certainty.

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Br. 46.

390

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delim

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellants.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

1
Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision, dated
January 14, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta
City, finding accused-appellants Marlon Delim, Leon Delim and
Ronald Delim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and sentencing them to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
The court also ordered accused-appellants to pay, jointly and
severally, the heirs of the victim the sums of P75,000.00 as moral
damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon, together with
Manuel alias “Bong” and Robert, all surnamed Delim, were indicted
for murder under an Information dated May 4, 1999 which reads:

“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.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
2
Republic Act No. 7659.”

Only accused-appellants Marion (Bongbong), Leon and Ronald, all

surnamed Delim, were apprehended. Accused Robert and Manuel
remain at-large.

_______________

1 Penned by Judge Modesto C. Juanson.

2 Records, p. 1.

391

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003 391

People vs. Delim

At their arraignment, Marlon, Ronald and Leon, with the assistance

of their counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the trial, the prosecution established the following relevant
3
facts —
Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the
uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo Bantas,
the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the surname
Delim after he was “adopted” by the father of Marlon, Manuel and
Robert. However, Modesto’s wife, Rita, an illiterate, and their 16-
year old son, Randy, continued using Manalo Bantas as their
surname. Modesto, Rita and Randy considered Marlon, Robert,
Ronald, Manuel and Leon as their relatives. Manuel and Leon were
the neighbors of Modesto. Marlon, Robert and Ronald used to visit
Modesto and his family. Modesto and his family and the Delim kins
resided in Barangay Bila, Sison, Pangasinan.
On January 23, 1999, at around 6:30 in the evening, Modesto,
Rita and Randy were preparing to have their supper in their home.
Joining them were Modesto and Rita’s two young grandchildren,
aged 5 and 7 years old. They were about to eat their dinner when
Marlon, Robert and Ronald suddenly barged into the house and
closed the door. Each of the three intruders was armed with a short
handgun. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and
Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of
4
cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto. Marlon, Robert and
Ronald herded Modesto out of the house on their way towards the
direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Rita and Randy were warned
by the intruders not to leave the house. Leon and Manuel, who were
also armed with short handguns, stayed put by the door to the house
of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy to stay where they were.
Leon and Manuel left the house of Modesto only at around 7:00 a.m.
the following day, January 24, 1999.
As soon as Leon and Manuel had left, Randy rushed to the house
of his uncle, Darwin Niño, at Sitio Labayog, informed the latter of
the incident the night before and sought his help for the

_______________

3 Prosecution presented four witnesses, namely, Rita Bantas, Randy Bantas, Dra.
Maria Fe de Guzman and SPO2 Jovencio Fajarito.
4 Records, Exhibit “C”.

392

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delim

retrieval of Modesto. Randy was advised to report the matter to the

police authorities. However, Randy opted to first look for his father.
He and his other relatives scoured the vicinity to locate Modesto to
no avail. They proceeded to Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan, around 200
meters away from Modesto’s house, to locate Modesto but failed to
find him there. On January 25, 1999, Randy and his relatives
returned to the housing project in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan to locate
Modesto but again failed to find him there. On January 26, 1999,
Randy reported the incident to the police authorities.
At around 3:00 in the afternoon of January 27, 1999, Randy, in
the company of his relatives, Nida Pucal, Pepito Pucal, Bernard
Osias and Daniel Delim, returned to the housing project in Paldit,
Sison, Pangasinan and this time they found Modesto under thick
bushes in a grassy area. He was already dead. The cadaver was
bloated and in the state of decomposition. It exuded a bad odor. Tiny
white worms swarmed over and feasted on the cadaver. Randy and
his relatives immediately rushed to the police station to report the
incident and to seek assistance.
When informed of the discovery of Modesto’s cadaver, the local
chief of police and SPO2 Jovencio Fajarito and other policemen
rushed to the scene and saw the cadaver under the thick bushes.
5
Pictures were taken of the cadaver. 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. Rita and Randy were at a loss why the five
malefactors seized Modesto and killed him. Rita and Randy gave
6
their respective sworn statements to the police investigators. Police
authorities proceeded to arrest Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Manuel and
Leon but failed to find them in their respective houses. The police
officers scoured the mountainous parts of Barangays Immalog and
Labayog to no avail.
The cadaver was autopsied by Dr. Maria Fe L. De Guzman who
prepared her autopsy report, which reads:

_______________

5 Records, Exhibits “C” and “C-1”.

6 Records, Exhibits “D” and “B”.

393

VOL. 396, JANUARY 28, 2003 393

People vs. Delim

“SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL FINDINGS:

—Body - both upper extremities are flexed

—both lower extremities are flexed

—(+) body decomposition
—(+) worms coming out from injuries

—10 x 10 ml. GSW, —1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound,

pre-auricular area, right lateral aspect D/3rd, left arm
—20 x 20 ml. GSW, —1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound,
mandibular areas, right medial aspect M/3rd, left arm
—10 x 10 ml. GSW, —1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound,
maxillary area, right medial aspect D/3rd, left arm
—10 x 10 ml. GSW, —#3; 1 x 1 cm. in line with each
below middle nose, other, stabbed wound, medial
directed upward (POE) aspect, M/3rd, left forearm
—30 x 40 ml. GSW, —1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound,
mid parieto – occipital medial aspect, D/3rd, left, forearm
area (POEx)
—2 x 1 cms. lacerated —10 x 6 cms. Inflamed scrotum
wound, right cheek
—1 x 1 cm. stabbed —penis inflamed
wound, axillary area,
left
—1 x 1 cm. stabbed
wound, lateral aspect
M/3rd left arm

SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL FINDINGS:

—no significant internal findings

CAUSE OF DEATH:
7
GUN SHOT WOUND, HEAD.”

_______________

7 Records, Exhibit “A”.

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delim

The stab wounds sustained by Modesto on his left arm and forearm
were defensive wounds. The police investigators were able to
confirm that Marlon, Ronald,8
Robert, Leon and Manuel had no
licenses for their firearms.
Records of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
in Baguio City show that Marlon had pending cases for robbery in
the Regional