Title
People vs. Delim
Case
G.R. No. 142773
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2003
Accused-appellants abducted Modesto Delim, who was later found dead. Convicted of kidnapping, not murder, due to insufficient evidence of killing; sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247409)

Parties and Roles

Plaintiff-Appellee: State (People of the Philippines)
Defendants-Appellants: Marlon Delim, Leon Delim, Ronald Delim (charged with murder under Article 248, RPC, as amended by RA 7659)

Key Dates

• January 23, 1999: Armed intruders abduct Modesto from his home in Barangay Bila, Sison, Pangasinan
• May 4, 1999: Information for murder filed in RTC, Urdaneta City
• January 14, 2000: RTC, Branch 46, convicts accused of aggravated murder; imposes death penalty and orders moral/exemplary damages
• January 28, 2003: Supreme Court issues decision on automatic review

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, presumption of innocence)
• Revised Penal Code (RPC) Article 248 (murder), Article 249 (homicide)
• Republic Act No. 7659 (revised death penalty law)
• Rules of Court on designation of offense and aggravating circumstances

Factual Background

On the evening of January 23, 1999, three armed men—identified by Randy and Rita Bantas as Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim—barged into the Delims’ home, pointed handguns at Modesto, hog-tied and gagged him, then led him away. Two others, Leon and Manuel Delim, remained at the door with firearms, warning victim’s wife and son not to move until around 7:00 a.m. the next day. The family reported the disappearance on January 26. On January 27, Randy and relatives found Modesto’s decomposed body about 200 meters from his house. Dr. De Guzman’s autopsy revealed five gunshot wounds to the head (cause of death) and seven defensive stab wounds.

Procedural History

RTC, Branch 46, Urdaneta City, convicted Marlon, Ronald and Leon Delim of aggravated murder with qualifying circumstance of treachery and aggravating circumstances of superior strength, nighttime and use of unlicensed firearms. It imposed the death penalty and joint and several damages of ₱75,000 moral and ₱25,000 exemplary. The decision was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Nature of Offense: Murder or Kidnapping?

The Supreme Court held that, despite allegations of abduction, the Information’s recital of facts shows specific intent to kill (murder) rather than to detain for ransom (kidnapping). Under 1987 constitutional due-process standards and guiding jurisprudence, where deprivation of liberty is incidental to killing, the crime charged is murder (Art. 248, RPC) and not kidnapping (Art. 267, RPC). The primary and ultimate purpose was to kill Modesto, rendering the abduction preparatory and merged into the killing.

Proof of Guilt and Corpus Delicti

The Court reaffirmed that murder requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of (1) death of the victim; (2) criminal agency of another; and (3) defendant’s criminal responsibility. Direct and circumstantial evidence satisfied these elements:
• Eyewitness identifications by Rita and Randy Bantas;
• Corroborated sequences of abduction and guard details;
• Autopsy findings of fatal gunshot wounds and defensive stab wounds;
• Flight of accused from their homes when sought by police.

Minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts were deemed collateral and insufficient to discredit their credibility, given the trial court’s superior vantage to observe demeanor.

Conspiracy and Principal Liability

The Court applied the doctrine of conspiracy and ad hoc mutual agency: all participants’ acts in furtherance of the common design are attributed to each conspirator. Leon’s role as lookout and guard, even if he did not fire the fatal shots, made him a principal by direct participation. The synchronized conduct of the Delims evinced a pre-conceived plan to kill Modesto.

Defense of Alibi

Various alibi claims were advanced:
• Ronald: at home in Asan Norte (10 km away) with family;
• Leon: working and residing in Laoag City since 1997;
• Marlon: vacation in Dumaguete City until January 29, 1999.
The Court found these unsupported by credible documents or independent testimony, easily fabricated and unpersuasive against positive eyewitness identifications and proximity factors.

Assessment of Aggravating Circumstances

While the trial court appreciated treachery, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, dwelling and use of unlicensed firearms, the Supreme Court held:
• Treachery requires deliberate adoption of means that give no chance to defend; insufficient proof of that timing at actual killing.
• Abuse of superior strength demands intentional exploitation of numerical or physical advantage; mere arming and outnumbering did not suffice.
• Nighttime, dwelling and unlicensed-firearm circumstances were not properl







...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.