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.

[Note: Hindi ko na sinama yung other appeals na niraise nung accused since under yung topic sa Intent v
Motive, and yung first issue lang about Specific Intent yung nag discuss about dun. Just read the whole
text for the whole story.]

FACTS:

On January 23, 1999, at around 6:30 in the evening, Modesto the victim, Rita the wife of
Modesto and Randy their child were preparing to have their supper in their home. Joining them
were Modesto and Ritas two young grandchildren, aged 5 and 7 years old. They were about to
eat their dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald all surnamed Delim suddenly barged into the
house armed with a short handgun each and closed the door. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto
while Robert and Ronald grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of cloth was placed in the
mouth of Modesto. He was then herded outside by the assailants out of 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. As soon as Leon and Manuel
had at left 7:00 a.m. the following day, Randy rushed to the house of his uncle, Darwin Nio to
inform his uncle about the incident and sought his help for the retrieval of Modesto. He was told
by his uncle to go to the authorities however Randy wanted to look for Modesto first. 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. The
policemen who rushed to the scene and saw the dead body took pictures of the cadaver. Rita
and Randy then told police the identity and the address of Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and
Manuel whom they claimed were responsible. Only Marlon, Leon and Ronald were
apprehended while Robert and Manuel still remain at large. The accused gave alibis and denied
any involvement for the death of Modesto. The Trial court then rendered judgment finding the
accused guilty and sentenced to DEATH, the records of the case was then transmitted to the
Supreme Court. An appeal was then made by accused that states that the court erred in finding
the accused guilty of murder.

ISSUE/S:

WHETHER OR NOT the accused is guilty of murder or kidnapping

RULLING:
 The accused are guilty of homicide and not murder nor kidnapping, The court held 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. 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. If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the victim,
the incidental deprivation of the victim’s liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping but is
merely a preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of
the victim. The crime committed would either be homicide or murder. 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. In this case it is evident that the
specific intent of the accused in barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him. He was
abducted precisely to kill him. The act of abducting him was merely incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him. However the Court found the accused guilty of homicide (not murder) for
failure of the prosecution to present any witness or conclusive evidence that Modesto was
defenseless immediately before and when he was attacked and killed (thus, not treachery nor
use of superior strength).