If the primary and ultimate

purpose of the accused is to

kill the victim, the
deprivation of the
victim's liberty does not
constitute the felony of
kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to
the killing. The crime
committed would either be
homicide or murder.
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.
In this case, it was evident
on the face of the
Information that the specific
intent of the
malefactors in barging into
the house of Modesto was to
kill him and that he was
seized
precisely to kill him with the
modifying circumstances.
The act of the accused of
abducting
Modesto was merely
incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there was
no specific allegation in the
information that the primary
intent of the malefactors was
to
deprive Modesto of his
freedom or liberty and that
killing him was merely
incidental to
kidnapping.
The decision of the trial court
was affirmed with
modification. Accused-
appellants Marlon
Delim, Ronald Delim and
Leon Delim were found
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the
If the primary and ultimate
purpose of the accused is to
kill the victim, the
deprivation of the
victim's liberty does not
constitute the felony of
kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to
the killing. The crime
committed would either be
homicide or murder.
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.
In this case, it was evident
on the face of the
Information that the specific
intent of the
malefactors in barging into
the house of Modesto was to
kill him and that he was
seized
precisely to kill him with the
modifying circumstances.
The act of the accused of
abducting
Modesto was merely
incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there was
no specific allegation in the
information that the primary
intent of the malefactors was
to
deprive Modesto of his
freedom or liberty and that
killing him was merely
incidental to
kidnapping.
The decision of the trial court
was affirmed with
modification. Accused-
appellants Marlon
Delim, Ronald Delim and
Leon Delim were found
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of t
If the primary and ultimate
purpose of the accused is to
kill the victim, the
deprivation of the
victim's liberty does not
constitute the felony of
kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to
the killing. The crime
committed would either be
homicide or murder.
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.
In this case, it was evident
on the face of the
Information that the specific
intent of the
malefactors in barging into
the house of Modesto was to
kill him and that he was
seized
precisely to kill him with the
modifying circumstances.
The act of the accused of
abducting
Modesto was merely
incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there was
no specific allegation in the
information that the primary
intent of the malefactors was
to
deprive Modesto of his
freedom or liberty and that
killing him was merely
incidental to
kidnapping.
The decision of the trial court
was affirmed with
modification. Accused-
appellants Marlon
Delim, Ronald Delim and
Leon Delim were found
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of
5. People v. Delim, G.R. No.
142773, 28 January 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.
FACTS:
Marlon, Manuel and Robert
Delim were brothers and 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.
On January 23, 1999 in the
evening, Marlon, Robert and
Ronald took Modesto out of
his
house. 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.
Rita and Randy were warned
not to leave the house. Leon
and Manuel, who were
stayed put
by the door to the house of
Modesto, ordered Rita and
Randy to stay where they
were.
Randy sought the help of
relatives for the retrieval of
Modesto. They scoured the
vicinity to
locate Modesto but to no
avail. Four days later, Randy
and their relatives found
Modesto in a
grassy area. He was already
dead. He sustained five
gunshot wounds and knife
wounds on his
arms.
Marlon, Ronald and Leon
interposed denial and
alibi. The trial court
rendered judgment
finding the accused guilty of
murder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime
charged in the Information
was kidnapping
RULING:
No. During the deliberation,
some members of the Court
opined that under the
Information,
Marlon, Ronald and Leon
were charged with
kidnapping under Article
267 of the Revised
Penal Code and not with
murder in its aggravated
form.
This was in light of the
allegation that the accused
"willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
grabbed, held, hog-tied,
gagved, brought out and
abducted Modesto Delim
while Leon Delim
and Manuel Delim stayed in
the house (and) guarded
and prevented the wife and
son of
Modesto Delim from helping
the latter."
They submitted that the
foregoing allegation
constitutes the act of
deprivation of liberty of the
victim. Since the prosecution
failed to prove motive on the
part of Marlon, Ronald and
Leon to
kill Modesto, they were
not criminally liable for
the death
Ah Chong 15 Phil. 488
G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910
CARSON, J.

Lesson: mistake of fact, definition of felony

Laws: Article 1 RPC, Art 3 RPC

FACTS:
• August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by some trying to
force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no
answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent
upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief,
leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment he was
struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought to be an unlawful aggression) which had
been placed against the door. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the
defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate,
Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on him
• Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure
bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
• There had been several robberies not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took
place in a house where he was employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal
protection.
• trial court held it as simple homicide

ISSUE: W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the
facts, does an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he
supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor
had known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act.

HELD: trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime
NO.
• GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal intent
in order that the actor may be held criminally liable
EX: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express provisions of
article 8 of the code

• Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code is as follows:

Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.
o A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit.
o voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act
o "malice" signifying the intent
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so
o “ Actus me incito factus non est meus actus” - an act done by me against my will is not my act
• GR: courts have recognized the power of the legislature to forbid, in a limited class of cases, the
doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal WITHOUT regard to the intent of the
doer
• EX: intention of the lawmaker to make the commission of certain acts criminal without regard to
the intent of the doer is clear and beyond question the statute will not be so construed
• ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness
• defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that
he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as
he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his
act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness
in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the
imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under
his charge.

If the primary and ultimate

purpose of the accused is to
kill the victim, the
deprivation of the
victim's liberty does not
constitute the felony of
kidnapping but is merely a
preparatory act to
the killing. The crime
committed would either be
homicide or murder.
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.
In this case, it was evident
on the face of the
Information that the specific
intent of the
malefactors in barging into
the house of Modesto was to
kill him and that he was
seized
precisely to kill him with the
modifying circumstances.
The act of the accused of
abducting
Modesto was merely
incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there was
no specific allegation in the
information that the primary
intent of the malefactors was
to
deprive Modesto of his
freedom or liberty and that
killing him was merely
incidental to
kidnapping.
The decision of the trial court
was affirmed with
modification. Accused-
appellants Marlon
Delim, Ronald Delim and
Leon Delim were found
guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the
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.
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.
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.
G.R. No. 142773. January 28,
200