G.R. No. 175942 - People of The Phil. v. Norberto Delim: September 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v.
Norberto Delim : September 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 4/25/21, 3:57 PM
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence
September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Search
Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 >

ChanRobles September 2007 Decisions > G.R. No. 175942 - People
Professional of the Phil. v. Norberto Delim:
Review, Inc.
G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v. Norberto Delim
FIRST DIVISION
ChanRobles On- [G.R. NO. 175942 : September 13, 2007]

Line Bar Review
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL DELIM
alias "BONG," NORBERTO DELIM and RONALD
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007septemberdecisions.php?id=1124 Page 1 of 26
G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v. Norberto Delim : September 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 4/25/21, 3:57 PM
DELIM alias "BONG," Accused,

NORBERTO DELIM, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
On appeal to this Court is the Decision 1 dated July 28,

2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC
No. 02001, finding herein accused-appellant Norberto
Delim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide. The decision affirmed with modifications an
earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 46, in its Criminal
ChanRobles CPA Case No. U-10059 which found appellant guilty of the
Review Online more serious offense of Murder and sentenced him to
the supreme penalty of death.
On account of the penalty of death imposed by the trial

court, the case was directly elevated to this Court for
automatic review in G.R. No. 153543. However,
pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo 2 modifying

the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure insofar as direct appeals from the
RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the case was transferred to the CA for
"appropriate action and disposition" per this Court's
Resolution of January 17, 2006, 3 whereat it was

docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 02001. Following the
ChanRobles Special
CA's affirmance, albeit with modifications, of the trial
Lecture Series
court's decision, appellant is again with this Court via
the present recourse pursuant to a Notice of Appeal 4

filed by him with the CA.
The Case
Marlon, Leon, Manuel @ "Bong," Norberto and Ronald

@ "Bong," all surnamed Delim, were jointly indicted in
the RTC of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan for the crime of
Murder under an Information 5 which reads as follows:
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 premeditation, conspiring with
one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of
cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused
Leon and Manuel Delim stayed in the house guarded
September-2007 and prevented the wife and son of Modesto Delim from
Jurisprudence helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of superior
strength stabbed and killed said Modesto Delim, to the
damage and prejudice of his heirs.
A.C. No. 5739 -
CONTRARY to Art. 248, Revised Penal Code, as
Penelco I v.
amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
Montemayor
Since Marlon, Leon and Ronald were the only ones duly
A.C. No. 3731 - apprehended, said three accused stood trial for the
MANUEL S. crime. On January 14, 2000, the trial court rendered
SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. judgment finding the three guilty beyond reasonable
EMILY A. BAJAR doubt of the crime of Murder and sentenced them to
suffer the death penalty. On January 28, 2003, this
A.M. No. 07-7-343- Court, on automatic review, affirmed the decision of
RTC - RE: ABSENCE the trial court but with the modification that the three
WITHOUT OFFICIAL
were only guilty of Homicide. 6 Marlon, Leon and Ronald
LEAVE (AWOL) OF
are already serving their respective sentences at the
MR. ROBERT L.
BORCILLO, UTILITY New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. The other

WORKER I, accused, Manuel Delim, remained at-large up to the
REGIONAL TRIAL present, while herein accused-appellant Norberto
COURT OF ILOILO Delim, then known as "Robert Delim," was
CITY, BRANCH 28. subsequently arrested by the police authorities.
Subsequent to his arrest, Robert was arraigned under

A.M. No. 07-9-12-
the same information for Murder. Assisted by counsel,
SC - THE RULE ON
he pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge. After a
THE WRIT OF
reinvestigation was conducted, the real name of Robert
AMPARO
was found to be Norberto Delim. Accordingly, the
Information was amended on July 10, 2001. 7

A.M. No. 07-7-17-
Thereafter, trial with respect to herein accused-
SC - Re: Letter of
appellant Norberto Delim ensued.
Judge Augustus C.
Diaz, etc. The Evidence
A.M. No. 07-7-343- In the course of the proceedings, the prosecution
RTC - RE: ABSENCE proffered in evidence the testimonies of Rita Manalo
WITHOUT OFFICIAL and Randy Manalo, the victim's wife and son,
LEAVE (AWOL) OF respectively, and that of Dra. Ma. Fe Lagmay de
MR. ROBERT L. Guzman, the Municipal Health Officer of Sison,
BORCILLO, UTILITY Pangasinan, who conducted the autopsy on the body of
WORKER I, the victim, plus the documents marked in the course of
REGIONAL TRIAL trial. For its part, the defense adduced in evidence the
COURT OF ILOILO testimonies of appellant himself and those of his
CITY, BRANCH 28. mother, Lucila Delim, and neighbors Emilio Lutan and
Nora Ramos.
A.M. No. MTJ-07-

In its Brief, the People, thru the Office of the Solicitor
1685 - Formerly OCA
General, presents the prosecution's version of the
IPI No. 05-1792-MTJ
incident, to wit:
- GIDEON B. JUSON
v. JUDGE VICENTE C. On January 23, 1999, at around six-thirty in the
MONDRAGON evening, the victim, Modesto Delim, his wife Rita
Manalo, son, Randy Manalo, and two young
A.M. No. MTJ-03- grandchildren, were about to take their supper in their
1505 - Mamasau house at Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, when suddenly,
Sultan Ali v. Hon. appellant Norbert Delim, together with co-accused
Baguinda Ali Pacalna, Marlon Delim and Ronald Delim, barged into their
et al. house carrying short firearms. While Modesto was
seated at the dinner table, Marlon poked a gun at him,
A.M. No. MTJ-06- and then appellant and Ronald dragged him out of the
1649 - Formerly OCA house. Randy saw the group which abducted his father
IPI No. 04-1605-MTJ who was then taken to Brgy. Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan.
- Ang Kek Chen v. Shortly, appellant's co-accused Leon Delim and Manuel
Judge Cristina Delim, who were also armed with short firearms,
Javalera-Sulit, et al. appeared and guarded the front door of the house to
prevent Rita and Randy from following the victim. Leon
A.M. No. MTJ-07- and Manuel left the house at around seven o'clock in
1667 - OCA v. Judge the morning of the next day.
James Go, et al.
On January 27, 1999, four days after Modesto's
abduction, his lifeless and decomposing body with
A.M. No. MTJ-07-
several stab wounds and a gunshot wound in the head
1685 - Formerly OCA
was discovered in a grassy area at the housing project
IPI No. 05-1792-MTJ
- GIDEON B. JUSON in Brgy. Paldit. 8
v. JUDGE VICENTE C. The testimony of Dra. Ma. Fe Lagmay de Guzman,

MONDRAGON given on August 16, 1999 during the trial of the other
three (3) accused (Marlon, Leon and Ronald), was
A.M. No. P-05-1963 adopted by the prosecution without objection from the
- Divina D. Balingit, appellant. Said witness' testimony showed that the
et al. v. Aurora T. victim (1) suffered from five gunshot wounds, inflamed
Laranang etc. penis and scrotum and seven stab wounds; (2) died of
multiple gunshot wounds; and (3) autopsy was
A.M. No. P-05-2000 conducted four days after the victim died.
- Atty. Jose A. Suelto
v. Deputy Sheriffs In defense, herein appellant denied the charge against
Rogelio P. Forniza him and averred that on the date of the alleged
etc., et al. commission of the crime, he was in Villa Paz, Naguilian,
Isabela where his family had transferred from Bila,

A.M. No. P-06-2184 Sison, Pangasinan in the year 1986. According to him,
- Marcela Guilas- he worked at the farm on that day of January 23,
Gamis v. Judge 1999, and later in the afternoon of the same day, he,
Rodolfo P. Beltran, et together with some companions, walked home and
al. arrived at their house at eight o'clock in the evening.
Though admitting that one of his co-accused, Marlon, is
A.M. No. P-06-2198 his brother, appellant denied any relation with the
- Formerly OCA IPI victim Modesto Delim despite their having the same
No. 05-2214-P - Sta. surname. He completely denied knowing Modesto's
Lucia East wife, Rita, and son, Randy. Lastly, appellant declared
commercial Corp etc. that since his family moved to Isabela in 1986, he had
v. Conrado G. been to Pangasinan only once and that was in 1997.
Lamano etc.
Lucila Delim, mother of appellant, corroborated her
son's testimony and added that the trip by buses from
A.M. No. P-06-2238
Sison, Pangasinan to Naguilian, Isabela is every 30
- Edgar Noel C.
minutes. Nora Ramos and Emilio Lutan, appellant's
Licardo v. Juliet
neighbors at Villa Paz, Naguilian, Isabela both attested
Almonte Licardo, et
to appellant's presence thereat on January 23, 1999,
al.
the former having seen appellant at about ten o'clock
in the evening of said day and at six o'clock the
A.M. No. RTJ-07-
following morning, while the latter claiming to have
2043 - JUAN DE LA
been with the appellant at the farm the whole day of
CRUZ v. JUDGE
January 23, 1999.
RUBEN B. CARRETAS
The trial and appellate court's decisions

A.M. No. RTJ-01-
1621 - Concerned In a decision 9 dated April 29, 2002, the trial court,
Boholanos for Law & basing its judgment purely on circumstantial evidence
Order v. Judge and appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
Dionisio R. Calibo Jr treachery, adjudged appellant guilty beyond reasonable
etc. doubt of murder and sentenced him to suffer the death

penalty. Dispositively, the decision states:
A.M. NO. RTJ-06-
1994 - Formerly A.M. WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION beyond

No. 06-240-RTC - reasonable doubt is hereby rendered against Norberto
OCA v. Judge Leoncio Delim the commission of Murder, a crime defined and
M. Janolo, et al. penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by R.A. 7659 and the Court sentences him
A.M. No. RTJ-06- to suffer the penalty of DEATH, to be implemented in
1995 - Formerly OCA the manner as provided for by law; the Court likewise
IPI No. 02-1480-RTJ - orders the accused to jointly and solidarily (with
Felicidad Tenenan v. accused Ronald, Marlon and Leon all surnamed Delim),
Judge Fernando F. to pay civil indemnity of P50,000.00; to indemnify the
Flor, Jr. heirs of Modesto Delim the sum of P75,000.00 as moral
damages; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages as
A.M. No. RTJ-07- stated in the decision of this Court against accused
2083 - Formerly A.M. Ronald Delim, Marlon Delim and Leon Delim dated
OCA IPI No. 06-2489- January 14, 2000.
RTJ - Benjamin M.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit
Mina, Jr. v. Judge
the entire records of this case to the Honorable
Pedro B. Corales etc.
Supreme Court and to prepare the mitimus fifteen (15)
days from date of promulgation.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-
2043 - JUAN DE LA The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and
CRUZ v. JUDGE Penology, Urdaneta City, is hereby ordered to transmit
RUBEN B. CARRETAS the person of Norberto Delim to the New Bilibid
Prisons, Muntinlupa City, fifteen (15) days from receipt
G.R. No. 130348 - of this decision.
MIGUEL SORIANO,
Let an Alias Warrant of Arrest be issued for the
JR., ET AL. v. ANTERO
apprehension of accused Manuel Delim. In the
SORIANO, ET AL.
meantime, let the case against him be ARCHIVED.
G.R. No. 132403 SO ORDERED.

and G.R. NO. 132419
- Hi-Cement Corp. v. As earlier stated, when directly elevated to this Court
Insular Bank of Asia for automatic review in view of the penalty imposed,
& America / E.T. the case was transferred to the CA for appropriate
Henry & Co. et al v. action and disposition, whereat it was docketed as CA-
Insular / Bank of Asia G.R. CR.-HC No. 02001.
& America.
In its decision dated July 28, 2006, the CA partially
granted the appeal as it ruled that while appellant's
G.R. No. 132502
guilt was duly proved, nonetheless, it was only for the
and G.R. No. 132503
crime of homicide since the qualifying circumstance of
- BENIGNO M. PUNO,
treachery was not attendant at the time the victim was
ET AL. v. THE COURT
killed. We quote the fallo of the CA decision:
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is partially GRANTED. The
G.R. NOS. 137355- assailed decision of the RTC, Br. 46 of Urdaneta City is
58 - Eugen U. hereby modified in that appellant Norberto Delim is
Caballero, et al. v. found guilty of homicide as defined in and penalized by
Sandiganbayan, et al. Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and is meted the
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and I day of prision
G.R. No. 137548 - mayor in its maximum period as minimum to 14 years,
HEIRS OF THE LATE 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its
DOMINGO N. medium period as maximum, there being no modifying
NICOLAS v. circumstances in the commission of the crime.
METROPOLITAN BANK
Accused is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim in the
& TRUST COMPANY
amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, the
amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages and
G.R. No. 138142 -
the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
THE PRESIDENTIAL
AD HOC FACT-
SO ORDERED. 10
FINDING COMMITTEE
ON BEHEST LOANS, The case is again with us in view of the Notice of
ET AL. v. Appeal interposed by appellant from the CA decision.
OMBUDSMAN
In its Resolution 11 of February 26, 2007, the Court
ANIANO A.
accepted the appeal and required the parties to file
DESIERTO, ET AL.
their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire.
G.R. No. 140337 - In their respective Manifestations, 12 the parties waived
Ake Hernudd, et al v. the filing of supplemental briefs and instead merely
Lars E. Lofgren, et al. adopted the Briefs 13 they have earlier respectively filed
with this Court before the case was transferred to the
G.R. No. 140474 - CA.
Municipality of Sta. Fe
In his Brief, appellant asks this Court to consider the
v. Municipality of
following: (1) whether the circumstantial evidence
Aritao
presented was sufficient for conviction; (2) whether
conspiracy was sufficiently established; and (3)
G.R. No. 140656
whether his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
and G.R. No. 154482
- MAYOR FELIPE K. The appeal must fail.
CONSTANTINO v.
HON. Conviction in a criminal case does not entail absolute
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET certainty; what is required only is that degree of proof
AL. which, after an examination of the entire records of the

case, produces in an unprejudiced mind moral certainty
G.R. No. 142896 - of the culpability of the accused. 14

CANELAND SUGAR
At the outset, we may well emphasize that direct
CORPORATION v.
evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only
HON. REYNALDO M.
basis on which a court draws its finding of guilt,
ALON, ET AL.
because established facts that form a chain of
circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel a
G.R. No. 144208 -
conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction. 15
EFREN TANDOG, ET
Indeed, rules on evidence and principles in
AL. v. RENATO
jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused
MACAPAGAL, ET AL.
through circumstantial evidence, defined as that which
"indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference
G.R. No. 146212 -
which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
FRED N. BELLO v.
NATIONAL LABOR established." 16 Resort thereto is essential when the
RELATIONS lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon
COMMISSION, ET AL. free. 17 It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis
direct evidence. 18 Cases have recognized that in its

G.R. No. 146221 - effect upon the courts, circumstantial evidence may
Atlas Consolidated surpass direct evidence in weight and probative
Mining & Devt. Corp. force. 19

v. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states that
circumstantial evidence suffices to convict if: (a) there
G.R. No. 146259 - is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
FLORENTINO, which the inferences are derived have been proven;
TROADIO & PEDRO and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
ALL SURNAMED such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
OCHOA v. MAURO doubt. Thus, to justify a conviction based on
APETA, ET AL. circumstantial evidence, the combination of

circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to
G.R. No. 146454 - leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
PAMELA S. accused. 20
SEVILLENO, ET AL. v.
After a careful review of the records of this case, we
PACITA CARILO, ET
find that, when viewed as a whole, the circumstantial
AL.
evidence proved by the prosecution points unerringly to
the culpability of appellant Norberto Delim as one of
G.R. No. 147695 -
the persons responsible for the killing of the victim,
MANUEL C.
Modesto Delim. Indeed, the combination of the
PAGTALUNAN v.
circumstances which comprised such evidence forms an
RUFINA DELA CRUZ
unbroken chain that points to appellant as one of the
VDA. DE MANZANO
perpetrators of the crime.
G.R. No. 146511 - First, the forcible abduction of the victim from his
TOMAS ANG v. house with the use of short firearms by the appellant
ASSOCIATED BANK, together with Marlon Delim and Ronald Delim on
ET AL. January 23, 1999 at about eight o'clock in the evening.
Second, right after the victim was taken out of the
G.R. No. 147961 - house, appellant's two other co-accused, Manuel Delim
FOREVER SECURITY and Leon Delim, armed with short firearms, guarded
& GENERAL and prevented household members from getting out
SERVICES v. ROMEO until the following morning of January 24, 1999. And
FLORES, ET AL. third, four days after the abduction, the victim's dead
body was found with multiple gunshot wounds.
G.R. No. 148308 - The circumstance of abduction was duly established by

Roberto D. Debaudln the testimony of the victim's son, Randy Manalo, to
v. Social Security wit:
System, et al.
Q While taking your supper that time, do
you recall if there was anything unusual
G.R. No. 148325 -
that happened at that time?
REYNALDO P.
cra lawlibrary
FLOIRENDO, JR. v.
A When we were about to eat three armed
METROPOLITAN BANK
men entered our house.
and TRUST COMPANY
Q Do you know these three armed men who
G.R. No. 148846 - entered your house? cra lawlibrary
Cecilia Amodia Vda

A Yes, sir.
De Melencion, et al.
v. Hon. Court of Q Who are they, name them one by one? cra lawlibrary
Appeals, et al.
A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and Ronald
G.R. No. 148980 - Delim.
PCI Leasing & Finance
xxx xxx xxx
Inc v. Sps. George M.
Dai etc. Q xxx What kind of arm were they carrying
at that time? cra lawlibrary
G.R. No. 149023 -

Leo Winston Brin Lee A Short handgun, (sic) sir.
v. Sps. Amadeo &

Q When these three armed persons whom
Adelaida Carreon
you have mentioned, armed with short
firearms, what did they do then when they
G.R. No. 149072 -
entered your house? cra lawlibrary
Esther S. Pagano v.
Juan Nazarro Jr., et A They took my father, sir.
al.
Q Who took your father? cra lawlibrary
G.R. No. 149625 -

A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim, and Ronald
Weena Express Inc. v.
Godofredo R. Delim, sir.

Rapacon, et al.
xxx xxx xxx
G.R. No. 149372 - Q How did they get your father? cra lawlibrary
RICARDO BACABAC v.
PEOPLE OF THE A They poked a gun and brought him
PHILIPPINES outside the house, sir. 21
Q What is the name of Norberto Delim, has

G.R. No. 149858 -
he another name?
FRANCISCO M. BAX v.
cra lawlibrary
PEOPLE OF THE
A The name that they called him in our
PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
place is Robert, madam.
G.R. No. 149995 - xxx xxx xxx

Isidro Pablito M.
Q His name given to the Honorable Court
Palana v. People of
was Norberto and you said Robert entered
the Philippines
your house that evening. This Norberto and
Robert is the same who entered that
G.R. No. 150173 -
evening of your house on January 23,
PACIFICO GARING,
1999?
ET AL. v. HEIRS OF
cra lawlibrary
MARCOS SILVA, ET A Yes, sir.

AL.
Q How did these three (3) enter your house
G.R. NOS. 150329- that evening of January 23, 1999? cra lawlibrary
30 - RONALD K. GO,
A They entered thru the door, sir.
ET AL. v. THE
HONORABLE Q In other words, before they enter (sic)
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET your house, your door was already open, is
AL. that correct? cra lawlibrary
G.R. No. 150731 - A Yes sir.

CASENT REALTY
Q When these three (3) including Robert
DEVELOPMENT CORP.
v. PHILBANKING Delim entered your house, what happened

CORPORATION next after that? cra lawlibrary
G.R. No. 152273 - A They forcibly took hold of my father and
MARS C. PALISOC v. brought out, sir.
EASWAYS MARINE,
Q You said your father was forcibly took
INC., ET AL.
(sic) how did they forcibly take your father? cra
G.R. No. 152407 -

lawlibrary
Sps. Florendo Dauz

A They took hold of him, pulled him outside
etc, et al. v. Sps.
the house, sir.
Eligio & Lorenza
Chavez, et al. Q Who pulled your father outside your
House? cra lawlibrary
G.R. NOS. 152505-

06 - PRUDENTIAL A Marlon, Ronald, and Robert, sir. 22
GUARANTEE and
The second circumstance was likewise established by
ASSURANCE, INC. v.
Randy's testimony, viz:
EQUINOX LAND
CORPORATION Q What did you do after that when these
three (3) pulled your father Modesto Delim
G.R. No. 153029 - outside your house? cra lawlibrary
Bea Triz etc. all

A When my father was pulled outside from
Surnamed Acre v.
the house, Leon Delim and Manuel Delim
Evangeline Yuttikki
were with arms, sir.
G.R. No. 154276 - Q What kind of arms were they holding? cra lawlibrary
Conrado Cuyugan v.
Rodolfo Siasoco A Short firearms, sir. 23
Q After bringing your father out from your

G.R. No. 153290 -
house, what transpired next?
BMG RECORDS
cra lawlibrary
(PHILS.), INC., ET AL.

A Manuel Delim and Leon Delim said "Stay
v. AIDA C. APARECIO,
ET AL. in your house," and guarded us.
xxx xxx xxx

G.R. No. 154438 -
ALICIA F. RICAFORTE Q When your father was pulled out from
v. LEON L. JURADO your house by these three persons, what
did you and your mother do while these
G.R. No. 154654 - three persons were taking out of your
JOSEPHINE A. house? cra lawlibrary
TAGUINOD, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, A We did not do anything because Manuel
ET AL. and Leon Delim guarded us.
COURT
G.R. No. 155731 -
LOLITA LOPEZ v. Where, in your house? cra lawlibrary
BODEGA CITY, ET AL.

A Yes, sir.
G.R. No. 155903 -

xxx xxx xxx
C.F. SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT, INC. COURT
v. HON.
Why do you know that they were guarding
UNDERSECRETARY
you? cra lawlibrary
JOSE M. ESPANOL,
JR., ET AL. A Because they were at the door, sir? cra lawlibrary
G.R. No. 155990 - Q What was their appearance that time

UNIVERSAL when these two persons were guarding you,
AQUARIUS, INC., ET these Leon and Manuel? cra lawlibrary
AL. v. Q.C. HUMAN

A They were armed, sir.
RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Q What do you mean by armed? cra lawlibrary
CORPORATION
A They have gun, sir.
G.R. No. 156100 -
Q What kind of firearm?
VILMA E. ROMAGOS
cra lawlibrary
v. METRO CEBU A Short firearm, sir. 24

WATER DISTRICT, ET
Notably, another witness, the victim's wife, Rita
AL.
Manalo, corroborated Randy's afore-quoted
G.R. No. 156337 - testimony. 25
UCPB v. Alberto T.
As for the victim dying of multiple gunshot wounds
Looyuko, et al.
which were all fatal, the Autopsy Report 26 and the
G.R. No. 156364 - testimony of the municipal health officer 27 who
JACOBUS BERNHARD conducted the autopsy duly proved such circumstance.
HULST v. PR
In light of the aforementioned evidence, the collapse of
BUILDERS, INC.
appellant's defenses, i.e., denial and alibi, is inevitable.
More so, in the face of the categorical and positive
G.R. No. 156539 -
identification of appellant by the two (2) prosecution
DOMINGO A. DIZON
witnesses, both of whom saw appellant up close, as
v. ELPIDIO R. DIZON
one of the three (3) malefactors who forcibly abducted
and dragged the victim out of the house on that fateful
G.R. No. 156905 -
night of January 23, 1999. For sure, alibi cannot be
ATHENA COMPUTERS,
given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of
INC., ET AL. v.
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
WESNU A. REYES
matters. 28 Positive identification destroys the defense
of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such
G.R. No. 157076 -
identification is credible and categorical. 29
PROGRESSIVE
DEVELOPMENT Besides, basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the
CORPORATION - accused must prove that he was somewhere else when
PIZZA HUT, ET AL. v. the crime was committed and that it was physically
EVERGISTO ANTONIO impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
E. SARMIENTO, ET
crime. 30 Physical impossibility refers to the distance
AL.
between the place where the appellant was when the
crime transpired and the place where it was
G.R. No. 157201 -
committed, as well as the facility of access between the
Nemrod Gotis v.
two places. 31
People of the
Philippines Here, appellant argues that he was nowhere near the

crime scene on the night of January 23, 1999. But even
G.R. No. 157472 - assuming that the distance between Naguilian, Isabela
Ssgt. Jose M. Pacoy v. where appellant allegedly was, and Sison, Pangasinan
Hon. Afable E. where the crime took place, can be negotiated in eight
Cajigal, et al. (8) hours as asserted by the appellant, still, it was not
physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis
G.R. No. 157856 - at the time of the killing, for, as admitted by his
Concepcion C. Anillo mother, Lucila Delim, the bus trips to and from said
v. Commission on the places are every thirty (30) minutes.
Settlement of Land
Notwithstanding the foregoing established facts,
Problems etc, et al.
appellant insists on his innocence, claiming that
conspiracy was not established by clear and convincing
G.R. No. 158897 -
evidence.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
FREDESVINDA an agreement concerning the commission of a crime
ALMEDA CONSUNJI and decide to commit it. 32 It may be proved by direct
or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or
G.R. No. 159343 - conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and
Pedy Caseres, et al. after the commission of the felony to achieve a
v. Universal Robina
common design or purpose. 33 Hence, common design
Sugar Milling Corp.,
is the essence of conspiracy.
et al.
Here, as found by the trial and appellate courts,
G.R. No. 159349 - appellant acted in concert with his other co-accused
VICTOR ANDRES Marlon, Ronald, Manuel and Leon to achieve a common
MANHIT v. OFFICE OF criminal design. Indeed, conspiracy among said
THE OMBUDSMAN, ET accused could easily be deduced from their presence
AL. and actual participation in the commission of the crime.
As aptly stated by the trial court:
G.R. No. 159974 -
In this case, while there was no previous agreement
JESUS CAYABYAB, ET
between accused Norberto Delim and all other accused
AL. v. ROSEMARIE
GOMEZ DE AQUINO, to kill the victim, the simultaneous acts of accused

ETC. Marlon, Ronald and Norberto Delim in forcibly taking
hold and bringing out the victim from his house and the
G.R. No. 161098 - use of Manuel and Leon Delim as guards to watch the
Office of the wife and son and other members of the household
Ombudsman v. Celso showed unity of purpose. The concerted action of all
Santiago the afore-named accused against the victim, Modesto
Delim, made them co-principals by direct participation,
G.R. No. 160303 - and therefore conspiracy is proved. 34
G & S Transport Corp
v. Tito S. Infante, et In any event, this Court, in People v. Delim, 35 already
al. ruled as to the existence of conspiracy among
appellant's co-accused, Marlon, Ronald and Leon, all
G.R. No. 161735 - surnamed Delim. We held therein:
Ex-C1C Jimmy B.
In the case at bar, Marlon, Ronald and Leon arrived
Sanchez, et al. v.
together in the house of Modesto, each armed with a
Roberto T. Lastimoso
handgun. Marlon and Ronald barged into said house
etc.
while Leon stood guard by the door thereof. After
Marlon and Ronald had left with Modesto in tow, Leon
G.R. No. 163130 -
stood by the door and warned Randy and Rita not to
SAN ROQUE REALTY
leave the house. Leon stood guard by the door of the
AND DEVELOPMENT
house until 7:00 a.m. of January 24, 1999 when he left
CORPORATION v.
the house. The overt acts of all the malefactors were so
REPUBLIC OF THE
synchronized and executed with precision evincing a
PHILIPPINES
preconceived plan or design of all the malefactors to
achieve a common purpose, namely the killing of
G.R. No. 164710 -
Modesto. Irrefragably, the tasks assigned to Leon in the
Ronald C. Jaucian v.
commission of the crime were (a) to act as a lookout;
Gen. Reynaldo G.
(b) to ensure that Rita and Randy remain in their house
Wycoco, et al.
to prevent them from seeking assistance from police
authorities and their relatives before their mission to
G.R. No. 164733 -
kill Modesto shall have been a fait accompli as well as
Michael John Z. Malto
the escape of Marlon and Roland. Patently, Leon, a
v. People of the
Philippines lookout for the group, is guilty of the killing of Modesto.

Leon may not have been at the situs criminis when
G.R. No. 165272 - Modesto was killed by Marlon and Roland nevertheless
Sergio Osme a III, et he is a principal by direct participation. If part of a
al. v. SS etc., et al. crime has been committed in one place and part in
another, each person concerned in the commission of
G.R. No. 165888 - either part is liable as principal. No matter how wide
Sps. Brilly V. may be the separation of the conspirators, if they are
Bernardez etc. v. all engaged in a common plan for the execution of a
Hon. Court of felony and all take their part in furtherance of the
Appeals, et al. common design, all are liable as principals. Actual
presence is not necessary if there is a direct connection
G.R. No. 165963 - between the actor and the crime.
SPOUSES NORBERTO
`
OLIVEROS, ET AL. v.
THE HONORABLE Conspiracy having been established, the act of one,
PRESIDING JUDGE, therefore, is the act of all and everyone of the
REGIONAL TRIAL conspirators, appellant included, is guilty with the
COURT, BRANCH 24, others in equal degree.
BIÃ‘AN, LAGUNA, ET
The sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence having
AL.
been established and the existence of conspiracy duly
proved, appellant's exact criminal responsibility must
G.R. No. 165971 -
now be determined.
SPOUSES JEANETTE
MALIWAT, ET AL. v. Pertinently, as defined by Article 248 of the Revised
METROPOLITAN BANK Penal Code, the crime of Murder is committed by a
& TRUST COMPANY person who kills another with treachery. Treachery
exists when the offender commits a crime against
G.R. No. 165975 - persons, employing means, methods or forms in the
Payakan G. Tilendo v. execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to
Ombudsman, et al. ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from any defense or retaliatory act which the victim
G.R. No. 166241 -
might make. 36
RUBEN LASCANO v.
PEOPLE OF THE Under the facts of this case, no one actually saw how
PHILIPPINES the killing was perpetrated. No evidence, whether
direct or circumstantial, was presented to establish that
G.R. No. 166547 - there had been the qualifying circumstance of
UMBRA M. TOMAWIS treachery in the commission of the crime. Indeed, a
v. ATTY. NORA M. review of the trial court's decision reveals that the trial
TABAO-CAUDANG judge discussed the presence of treachery during the
abduction of the victim but was silent as to its presence
G.R. No. 166800 at the time of the killing. Ergo, treachery, which must
and G.R. NO. 168924 be proven positively, cannot be appreciated in this case
- Leca Realty Corp. v. so as to elevate the killing to murder.
Manuela Corp, et
We, thus, concur with the following observations of the
al/Leca Realty Corp.
CA:
v. Manuel Corp, et al.
We subscribe to appellee's stand that appellant should
G.R. No. 167224 - be convicted and sentenced only for the crime of
Nolito L. Manago v. homicide and not murder since the qualifying
Comelec, et al. circumstance of treachery was not proved. The
circumstance allegedly pointed out as implying
G.R. No. 167637 - treachery had reference to victim Modesto Delim's
Metro Eye Security forcible abduction by Marlon, Ronald and by appellant
Inc. v. Julie V. Norberto Delim and not when he was killed. For
Salsona treachery to be correctly appreciated, the following
elements must be shown: (1) that the means of
G.R. No. 168779 - execution employed prevented the victim from
DBP v. Ruben S. Go, defending himself or retaliating and (2) it was
et al. deliberately and consciously adopted.
In the case at bar, there was no evidence showing that

G.R. No. 167670 -
victim Modesto Delim was defenseless before and at
PEOPLE OF THE
the time he was killed. The fact of dragging and forcibly
PHILIPPINES v.
abducting the victim cannot imply that he was killed
RODOLFO BIYOC y
WENCESLAO with treachery. 37
G.R. No. 168781 - Furthermore, in the aforesaid case of People v.

CITY OF MAKATI v. Delim, 38 this Court made the following ratiocination:
THE HON. JUDGE
xxx Although the victim may have been defenseless at
BRICCIO C. YGAÃ‘A,
the time he was seized but there is no evidence as to
ET AL.
the particulars of how he was assaulted and killed,
treachery cannot be appreciated against the accused.
G.R. No. 168902 -
In this case, the victim was defenseless when seized by
Bartola M. Vda De
Marlon and Ronald. However, the prosecution failed to
Tirona, et al. v. Cirilo
present any witness or conclusive evidence that
Encarnacion
Modesto was defenseless immediately before and when
he was attacked and killed. It cannot be presumed that
G.R. No. 169536 -
although he was defenseless when he was seized, the
Remigia Grageda, et
victim was in the same situation when he was
al. v. Hon. Nimfa C.
attacked, shot and stabbed by the malefactors. xxx
Gomez, et al.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery not having

G.R. No. 169059 -
been appreciated then against appellant's co-accused
THE PEOPLE OF THE
Marlon, Ronald and Leon Delim, said circumstance
PHILIPPINES v.
cannot now be appreciated against appellant. Verily,
LAMBERTO RAFON
absent any qualifying circumstance, appellant can be
convicted only of homicide defined and penalized by
G.R. No. 169752 -
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. 39
Phil. Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty In sum, we find appellant's guilt for the crime of
to Animals v. homicide to have been proven beyond reasonable
Commission On Audit, doubt.
et al.
Thus, the CA correctly meted on appellant the
indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision
G.R. No. 169642 -
mayor in its maximum period as minimum to 14 years,
People of the Phil. v.
8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its
Enrique Ceballos, Jr. y
medium period as maximum, there being no modifying
Cabrales
circumstance in the commission of the crime. Likewise
proper are the awards of civil indemnity and moral
G.R. No. 169882 -
MANOLO P. SAMSON damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each, as well as

v. CATERPILLAR, INC. exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of

G.R. No. 169801 -
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 02001 is hereby
Republic of the Phil.
AFFIRMED in all respects.
etc. v. Dona Tilla R.
Bautista, et al. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170361 -
People of the Phil. v. Endnotes:
Juan De La Tonga Y
Perante
1 Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N.
Tagle and concurred in by Associate Justices

G.R. No. 170583 -
Marina L. Buzon and Regalado E.
ERNESTO M.
Maambong; SC Rollo, pp. 3-15.
FULLERO v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES 2 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433
SCRA 640.
G.R. No. 171008 -
Carmelit A. Fudot v. 3 CA Rollo, p. 148.
Cattleya Land, Inc.

4 CA Rollo, p. 178.
G.R. No. 170928 - 5 Id. at 10-11.

Vicente S. Almario v.
PAL Inc. 6 People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773,
January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 386.
G.R. No. 171068 -
7 Original Records, p. 43.
HEIRS OF
MARCELINA
8 People's Brief; CA Rollo, pp. 121-122.
ARZADON-
CRISOLOGO, ET AL. 9 Id. at 20-32.
v. AGRIFINA RAÃ‘ON,
ET AL. 10 SC Rollo, pp. 14-15.
G.R. No. 171153 - 11 Id. at 16.
SAN MIGUEL
12 Id. at 17-18 & 19-21.
CORPORATION
EMPLOYEES UNION
13 Accused-Appellant's Brief, CA Rollo, pp.
PHILIPPINE
77-90 & People's Brief, CA Rollo, pp. 116-
TRANSPORT AND
136.
GENERAL WORKERS
ORGANIZATION v. 14 People v. Jose Casitas, Jr., G.R. No.
SAN MIGUEL
137404, February 14, 2003, 397 SCRA 382.
PACKAGING
PRODUCTS 15 People v. June Ignas, G.R. NOS. 140514-
EMPLOYEES UNION 15, September 30, 2003, 412 SCRA 311.

PAMBANSANG DIWA
16 People v. Ferdinand Matito, G.R. No.
NG MANGGAGAWANG
PILIPINO 144405, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 617.
17 Id.
G.R. No. 171208 -
THE COMMISSION ON 18 People v. Felixminia, G.R. No. 125333,
ELECTIONS v. HON. March 20, 2002, 379 SCRA 567.

THELMA CANLAS
19 Id.
TRINIDAD-PE
AGUIRRE, ET AL.
20 Supra note 14.
G.R. No. 172373 - 21 Original Records, TSN, August 18, 1999,

pp. 4-5.
Jimmy Soriano
22 Original Records, TSN, October 15,
G.R. No. 172384 - 2001, pp. 5-6.
Erminda F. Florentino
23 Id. at 7.
v. Superv Alue Inc.
24 Original Records, TSN, August 18, 1999,

G.R. No. 172500 -
pp. 6-7.
Lilibeth Aricheta v.
People of the 25 See TSN, November 19, 2001, pp. 4-6.
Philippines 26 Original Records, Exhibits "A" - "A-1."
27 TSN, August 16, 1999, Exhibit "C."

G.R. No. 172602 -
HENRY T. GO v. THE
28 Supra note 14.
FIFTH DIVISION, ET
AL. 29 Id.
G.R. No. 172697 - 30 Supra note 15.

31 Id.
Reynaldo Villanueva Y
Marquez
32 People v. Melchor Rafael, et al., G.R. No.
123176, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 97.

G.R. No. 173614 -
Lolita D. Enrico v. 33 Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. v. CA,
Heirs of Sps. Eulogio G.R. No. 163593, December 16, 2005, 478
B. Medinaceli, et al. SCRA 378.
34 CA Rollo, p. 31.
G.R. No. 173849 -
Pier 8 Arrastre &
35 Supra note 6.
Stevedoring Services
Inc., et al. v. Jeff B. 36 People v. Narciso Ramos, G.R. No.
Boclot
135204, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 299.
G.R. No. 174668 - 37 SC Rollo, p. 11.
Marlon T. Sales v.
38 Supra note 6.
COMELEC, et al.
39 Art. 249. Homicide. Any person who, not

G.R. No. 174771 -
falling within the provisions of Article 246,
shall kill another without the attendance of
Allan Nazareno Y
any of the circumstances enumerated in the
Caburatan
next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by
G.R. NOS. 175181-
reclusion temporal.
82 and G.R. NOS.
175354 & 175387-88

- METROPOLITAN
BANK and TRUST
COMPANY, INC. v.
Back to Home | Back to Main
SLGT HOLDINGS,
INC., ET AL.
G.R. No. 175281

Formerly G.R. No.
152240 - The People
of the Phil. v. Vincent
Evangelista
G.R. No. 175333 -

Sonny Rentoria Y
Velasco
G.R. No. 175451 -

Rosario L. Dadulo v.
The Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 175587 -

PCIB v. Joseph
Anthony M. Alejandro
G.R. No. 175594 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
JUNJUN DUCABO
G.R. No. 175720 -

Cresenciana Tubo
Rodriguez etc. v.
Evangeline Rodriguez,
et al.
G.R. No. 175783 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
BERNARDO TUAZON
Y NICOLAS
G.R. No. 175936 -

CHAN CUAN, ET AL.
v. CHIANG KAI SHEK
COLLEGE, INC., ET
AL.
G.R. No. 175942 -

Norberto Delim
G.R. No. 176153 -

Oligario Balonzo
G.R. No. 176262 -

Edilberto Torres, et
al.
G.R. No. 176267 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
RANDY ALABADO y
DAVID
G.R. No. 176528 -

People of the Phil v.
Moriel Sancho Y De
Pedro
G.R. No. 176290 -

Systra Phil, Inc. v.
Commissioner of
Internal Revenue
G.R. No. 176632

Formerly G.R. NOS.
151570-71 - The
Roberto Gingos Y
Latabi, et al.
G.R. No. 176633 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
ARMANDO SAN
ANTONIO, JR.
G.R. No. 177769 -

Jonas Bustamante
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

G.R. No. 175942 - People of The Phil. v. Norberto Delim: September 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 175942 - People of The Phil. v. Norberto Delim: September 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 >

G.R. No. 175942 - People of the Phil. v. Norberto Delim

ChanRobles On- [G.R. NO. 175942 : September 13, 2007]

DELIM alias "BONG," Accused,

On appeal to this Court is the Decision 1 dated July 28,

On account of the penalty of death imposed by the trial

pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo 2 modifying

Resolution of January 17, 2006, 3 whereat it was

the present recourse pursuant to a Notice of Appeal 4

Marlon, Leon, Manuel @ "Bong," Norberto and Ronald

Murder under an Information 5 which reads as follows:

That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at

BORCILLO, UTILITY New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. The other

Subsequent to his arrest, Robert was arraigned under

Information was amended on July 10, 2001. 7

A.M. No. 07-7-343- In the course of the proceedings, the prosecution

RTC - RE: ABSENCE proffered in evidence the testimonies of Rita Manalo

LEAVE (AWOL) OF respectively, and that of Dra. Ma. Fe Lagmay de

MR. ROBERT L. Guzman, the Municipal Health Officer of Sison,

BORCILLO, UTILITY Pangasinan, who conducted the autopsy on the body of

WORKER I, the victim, plus the documents marked in the course of

COURT OF ILOILO testimonies of appellant himself and those of his

A.M. No. MTJ-07-

v. JUDGE VICENTE C. The testimony of Dra. Ma. Fe Lagmay de Guzman,

etc., et al. commission of the crime, he was in Villa Paz, Naguilian,

Isabela where his family had transferred from Bila,

The trial and appellate court's decisions

Order v. Judge and appreciating the qualifying circumstance of

Dionisio R. Calibo Jr treachery, adjudged appellant guilty beyond reasonable

etc. doubt of murder and sentenced him to suffer the death

A.M. NO. RTJ-06-

1994 - Formerly A.M. WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION beyond

G.R. No. 132403 SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 140337 - In their respective Manifestations, 12 the parties waived

Ake Hernudd, et al v. the filing of supplemental briefs and instead merely

SANDIGANBAYAN, ET certainty; what is required only is that degree of proof

AL. which, after an examination of the entire records of the

G.R. No. 142896 - of the culpability of the accused. 14

RELATIONS lack of direct testimony would result in setting a felon

COMMISSION, ET AL. free. 17 It is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis

direct evidence. 18 Cases have recognized that in its

Mining & Devt. Corp. force. 19

FLORENTINO, which the inferences are derived have been proven;

ALL SURNAMED such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable

OCHOA v. MAURO doubt. Thus, to justify a conviction based on

APETA, ET AL. circumstantial evidence, the combination of

G.R. No. 146454 - leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the

G.R. No. 148308 - The circumstance of abduction was duly established by

G.R. No. 148846 - entered your house? cra lawlibrary

Cecilia Amodia Vda

G.R. No. 149023 -

v. Sps. Amadeo &

G.R. No. 149625 -

Godofredo R. Delim, sir.

Q What is the name of Norberto Delim, has

G.R. No. 149995 - xxx xxx xxx

MARCOS SILVA, ET A Yes, sir.

G.R. No. 150731 - A Yes sir.

v. PHILBANKING Delim entered your house, what happened

G.R. No. 152273 - A They forcibly took hold of my father and