G.R. No. 142773 January 28, 2003 Only accused-appellants Marlon (Bongbong), Leon and Ronald, all of Modesto.

ng), Leon and Ronald, all of Modesto. Randy was advised to report the matter to the police
surnamed Delim, were apprehended. Accused Robert and authorities. However, Randy opted to first look for his father. He
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, Manuel remain at-large. and his other relatives scoured the vicinity to locate Modesto to
vs. no avail. They proceeded to Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan, around 200
MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL DELIM alias "BONG" (At At their arraignment, Marlon, Ronald and Leon, with the meters away from Modesto's house, to locate Modesto but failed
Large), ROBERT DELIM (At Large), and RONALD DELIM alias assistance of their counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. to find him there. On January 25, 1999, Randy and his relatives
"BONG", accused-appellants. returned to the housing project in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan to
At the trial, the prosecution established the following relevant locate Modesto but again failed to find him there. On January 26,
CALLEJO, SR., J.: facts3 — 1999, Randy reported the incident to the police authorities.

Before the Court on automatic review is the Decision, 1 dated Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the At around 3:00 in the afternoon of January 27, 1999, Randy, in the
January 14, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo Bantas, company of his relatives, Nida Pucal, Pepito Pucal, Bernard Osias
City, finding accused appellants Marlon Delim, Leon Delim and the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the surname and Daniel Delim, returned to the housing project in Paldit, Sison,
Ronald Delim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Delim after he was "adopted" by the father of Marlon, Manuel Pangasinan and this time they found Modesto under thick bushes
murder and sentencing them to suffer the supreme penalty of and Robert. However, Modesto's wife, Rita, an illiterate, and their in a grassy area. He was already dead. The cadaver was bloated
death. The court also ordered accused-appellants to pay, jointly 16-year old son, Randy, continued using Manalo Bantas as their and in the state of decomposition. It exuded a bad odor. Tiny
and severally, the heirs of the victim the sums of P75,000.00 as surname. Modesto, Rita and Randy considered Marlon, Robert, white worms swarmed over and feasted on the cadaver. Randy
moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Ronald, Manuel and Leon as their relatives. Manuel and Leon and his relatives immediately rushed to the police station to
were the neighbors of Modesto. Marlon, Robert and Ronald used report the incident and to seek assistance.
Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon, together with to visit Modesto and his family. Modesto and his family and the
Manuel alias "Bong" and Robert, all surnamed Delim, were Delim kins resided in Barangay Bila, Sison, Pangasinan. When informed of the discovery of Modesto's cadaver, the local
indicted for murder under an Information dated May 4, 1999 chief of police and SPO2 Jovencio Fajarito and other policemen
which reads: On January 23, 1999, at around 6:30 in the evening, Modesto, Rita rushed to the scene and saw the cadaver under the thick bushes.
and Randy were preparing to have their supper in their home. Pictures were taken of the cadaver.5 Rita and Randy divulged to
Joining them were Modesto and Rita's two young grandchildren, the police investigators the names and addresses of Marlon,
"That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at
aged 5 and 7 years old. They were about to eat their dinner when Ronald, Robert, Leon and Manuel, whom they claimed were
Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction
Marlon, Robert and Ronald suddenly barged into the house and responsible for the death of Modesto. Rita and Randy were at a
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
closed the door. Each of the three intruders was armed with a loss why the five malefactors seized Modesto and killed him. Rita
armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the
short handgun. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and Randy gave their respective sworn statements to the police
house of Modesto Delim and once inside with intent to
and Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A investigators.6 Police authorities proceeded to arrest Marlon,
kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring
piece of cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto.4Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Manuel and Leon but failed to find them in their
with one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
Robert and Ronald herded Modesto out of the house on their way respective houses. The police officers scoured the mountainous
and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of
towards the direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Rita and Randy parts of Barangays Immalog and Labayog to no avail.
cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused
Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house were warned by the intruders not to leave the house. Leon and
guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto Manuel, who were also armed with short handguns, stayed put The cadaver was autopsied by Dr. Maria Fe L. De Guzman who
Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of by the door to the house of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy prepared her autopsy report, which reads:
superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto to stay where they were. Leon and Manuel left the house of
Delim, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs. Modesto only at around 7:00 a.m. the following day, January 24, "SIGNIFICANT EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
1999.
- Body - both upper extremities are flexed
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659."2 As soon as Leon and Manuel had left, Randy rushed to the house - both lower extremities are flexed
of his uncle, Darwin Niño, at Sitio Labayog, informed the latter of
- (+) body decomposition
the incident the night before and sought his help for the retrieval
 - (+) worms coming out from injuries To exculpate themselves, Marlon, Ronald and Leon interposed commission of Aggravated Murder, an offense defined
denial and alibi.10 and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
- 10 x 10 ml. GSW, pre-auricular area, right Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and the Court sentences
- 20 x 20 ml. GSW, mandibular areas, right Ronald claimed that on January 23, 1999, he, his wife and Marlon Delim, Ronald Delim and Leon Delim to suffer the
children, his mother, his brothers and sisters were in their house penalty of DEATH, to be implemented in the manner as
- 10 x 10 ml. GSW, maxillary area, right provided for by law; the Court likewise orders the
at Asan Norte, Sison, Pangasinan about two kilometers away from
- Modesto's house.
10 x 10 ml. GSW, below middle nose, directed upward (POE) accused, jointly and solidarily, to indemnify the heirs of
Modesto Delim the sum of P75,000.00 as moral
- 30 x 40 ml. GSW, mid parieto — occipital area (POEx) damages, plus the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
He denied having been in the house of Modesto on January 23,
- 2 x 1 cms. lacerated wound, right cheek 1999 and of abducting and killing him. He theorized that Rita and damages.

- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, axillary area, left Randy falsely implicated him upon the coaching of Melchor Javier
who allegedly had a quarrel with him concerning politics. The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit
- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, lateral aspect M/3rd left arm the entire records of this case to the Honorable Supreme
Court, and to prepare the mittimus fifteen (15) days from
- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, lateral aspect D/3rd, left arm Leon for his part averred that on January 23, 1999, he was in the
house of his sister, Hermelita Estabillo at No. 55-B, Salet, Laoag date of promulgation.
- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, medial aspect M/3rd, left arm City, Ilocos Norte where he had been living since 1997 after
- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound medial aspect D/3rd, left arm leaving Asan Norte, Sison, Pangasinan. Since then, he had been The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and
working for Sally Asuncion at a hollow-block factory in that city Penology, Urdaneta District Jail, Urdaneta City is hereby
- #3; 1 x 1 cm. in line with each other, stabbed would, medial aspect,
where M/3rd,
he was left forearm
a stay-in worker. ordered to transmit the persons of Marlon, Ronald and
- 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, medial aspect, D/3rd, left forearm Leon, all surnamed Delim to the New Bilibid Prisons,
Sally Asuncion corroborated Leon's alibi. She testified that Leon Muntinlupa City, fifteen days from receipt of this
- 10 x 6 cms. Inflamed scrotum decision.
Delim never went home to his hometown in Pangasinan during
- penis inflamed his employment. His sister, Hermelita Estabillo, likewise averred
that on January 23, 1999, his brother was at her house to give her SO ORDERED."12
SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL FINDINGS:
his laundry. She claimed that the distance between Laoag City and
- no significant internal findings Bila, Sison, Pangasinan can be traversed in six hours by bus. Leon The trial court appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance
presented a Barangay Certificate to prove that he was a resident and of taking advantage of superior strength, nighttime and use
CAUSE OF DEATH:
of Laoag City from January 1998 up to February 1999.11 of unlicensed firearms as separate of aggravating circumstances
7
- GUN SHOT WOUND, HEAD." in the commission of the crime. Marlon, Ronald and Leon, in their
Marlon asserted that he was on vacation in Dumaguete City from appeal brief, assail the decision alleging that:
The stab wounds sustained by Modesto on his left arm and December 26, 1998 up to January 29, 1999. During his stay there,
forearm were defensive wounds. The police investigators were he lived with his sister, Francisca Delim. Upon his return to Manila "I
able to confirm that Marlon, Ronald, Robert, Leon and Manuel on January 29, 1999, he immediately proceeded to Baguio to visit
had no licenses for their firearms. 8 his cousin. Marlon denied setting foot in Bila, Sison, Pangasinan THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
after his sojourn in Dumaguete City. APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
Records of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in OF MURDER.
Baguio City show that Marlon had pending cases for robbery in The trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellants
the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 16193- guilty of murder. The dispositive portion of the trial court's II
R, and for robbery in band in Criminal Cases Nos. 9801 and 9802 decision reads:
pending with the Regional Trial Court in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. 9 THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
"WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION beyond CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR.
reasonable doubt is hereby rendered against Ronald
Delim, Marlon Delim and Leon Delim (for) the
III "x x x Hence, as early as United States vs. Ancheta, and As a general rule, proof of motive for the commission of the
consistently reiterated thereafter, it has been held that offense charged does not show guilt and absence of proof of such
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND the detention and/or forcible taking away of the victims motive does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime
CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE OF ALIBI."13 by the accused, even for an appreciable period of time charged such as murder.20 The history of crimes shows that
but for the primary and ultimate purpose of killing them, murders are generally committed from motives comparatively
Before resolving the merits of the case at bar, we first resolve the holds the offenders liable for taking their lives or such trivial.21 Crime is rarely rational. In murder, the specific intent is
matter of whether the crime charged in the Information is murder other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but to kill the victim. In kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive
or kidnapping. During the deliberation, some distinguished the incidental deprivation of the victims' liberty does not the victim of his/her liberty. If there is no motive for the crime,
members of the Court opined that under the Information, constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention."15 the accused cannot be convicted for kidnapping.22 In kidnapping
Marlon, Ronald and Leon are charged with kidnapping under for ransom, the motive is ransom. Where accused kills the victim
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and not with murder in its If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused is to kill the to avenge the death of a loved one, the motive is revenge.
aggravated form in light of the allegation therein that the accused victim, the incidental deprivation of the victim's liberty does not
"willfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab(bed), h(e)ld, hog-tie(d), constitute the felony of kidnapping but is merely a preparatory In this case, it is evident on the face of the Information that the
gag(ged), with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct(ed) act to the killing, and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the house of
Modesto Delim (while) Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the killing of the victim.16 The crime committed would either be Modesto was to kill him and that he was seized precisely to kill
house (and) guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto homicide or murder. him with the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the
Delim from helping the latter." They submit that the foregoing malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their
allegation constitutes the act of deprivation of liberty of the What is primordial then is the specific intent of the malefactors as primary purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no specific
victim, the gravamen in the crime of kidnapping. They contend disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is allegation in the information that the primary intent of the
that the fact that the Information went further to charge accused determinative of what crime the accused is charged with — that malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty and
with the killing of the victim should be of no moment, the real of murder or kidnapping. that killing him was merely incidental to kidnapping.23 Irrefragably
nature of the criminal charge being determined not from the then, the crime charged in the Information is Murder under
caption or the preamble of the Information nor from the Philippine and American penal laws have a common thread on the Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under
specification of the law alleged to have been violated — these concept of specific intent as an essential element of specific intent Article 268 thereof.
being conclusions of law — but by the actual recital of facts in the crimes. Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which
complaint or information. They further submit that since the exists where circumstances indicate that an offender actively The threshold issue that now comes to fore is whether or not the
prosecution failed to prove motive on the part of Marlon, Ronald desired certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to
and Leon to kill Modesto, they are not criminally liable for the specific result to follow his act or failure to act.17 Specific intent prove that Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty of murder.
death of the victim but only for kidnapping the victim. involves a state of the mind. It is the particular purpose or specific
intention in doing the prohibited act. Specific intent must be In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
It bears stressing that in determining what crime is charged in an alleged in the Information and proved by the state in a guilt of the accused beyond cavil of doubt. The prosecution must
information, the material inculpatory facts recited therein prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent.18 Kidnapping and rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness
describing the crime charged in relation to the penal law violated murder are specific intent crimes. of the evidence of the accused. The proof against the accused
are controlling. Where the specific intent of the malefactor is must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not
determinative of the crime charged such specific intent must be Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by be permitted to sway judgment.24
alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution. A circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from the
decade ago, this Court held in People v. Isabelo Puno, et al.,14 that circumstances of the actions of the accused as established by the In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove
for kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the evidence on record.19 the corpus delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal
actual specific intent of the malefactor is to deprive the offended act and second, defendant's agency in the commission of the
party of his liberty and not where such restraint of his freedom of Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Motive generally act.25 Wharton says that corpus delictiincludes two things: first,
action is merely an incident in the commission of another offense is referred to as the reason which prompts the accused to engage the objective; second, the subjective element of crimes. 26 In
primarily intended by the malefactor. This Court further held: in a particular criminal activity. Motive is not an essential element homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is
of a crime and hence the prosecution need not prove the same. burdened to prove: (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead;
(b) that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other The prosecution did not present direct evidence to prove the "FISCAL TOMBOC: What were you doing then at that
than the deceased and was not the result of accident, natural authors of the killing of Modesto. It relied on circumstantial time in your house?
cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant committed the criminal evidence to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of accused-
act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act which appellants of murder. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of A We were eating, sir.
produced the death.27 To prove the felony of homicide or murder, collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, main fact may be inferred according to reason and common Q You said we, who were your companions eating
that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other experience.32 What was once a rule of account respectability is then at that time?
words, that there was intent to kill. Such evidence may now entombed in Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of
consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the Evidence which states that circumstantial evidence, sometimes
A My father, my mother and the two children and
nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim referred to as indirect or presumptive evidence, is sufficient as
myself, sir.
and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or anchor for a judgment of conviction if the following requisites
immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies concur:
Q While taking your supper that time, do you recall
because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is
if there was anything unusual that happened at that
conclusively presumed. "x x x if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the
time?
facts from which the inferences are derived have been
The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond established; and (c) the combination of all the
A When we were about to start to eat three armed
reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt
men entered our house.
or presumptive evidence.28 beyond reasonable doubt."33

Q Do you know these three armed men who entered

In the case at bar, the prosecution adduced the requisite quantum The prosecution is burdened to prove the essential events which
your house?
of proof of corpus delicti. Modesto sustained five (5) gunshot constitute a compact mass of circumstantial evidence, and the
wounds. He also sustained seven (7) stab wounds, 29 defensive in proof of each being confirmed by the proof of the other, and all
nature. The use by the malefactors of deadly weapons, more without exception leading by mutual support to but one A Yes, sir.
specifically handguns and knives, in the killing of the victim as well conclusion: the guilt of accused for the offense charged.34 For
as the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, Q Who are they, name them one by one?
said victim are evidence of the intent by the malefactors to kill the all the circumstances must be consistent with each other,
victim with all the consequences flowing therefrom.30 As the State consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and Ronald Delim.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin held in Cupps v. State:31 same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent,
and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.35 If Q Are these three persons inside the courtroom
"This rule, that every person is presumed to contemplate the prosecution adduced the requisite circumstantial evidence to now?
the ordinary and natural consequences of his own acts, prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden
is applied even in capital cases. Because men generally of evidence shifts to the accused to controvert the evidence of A Two of them, sir.
act deliberately and by the determination of their own the prosecution.
will, and not from the impulse of blind passion, the law Q Who are these two who are inside the courtroom?
presumes that every man always thus acts, until the In the present case, the prosecution mustered the requisite
contrary appears. Therefore, when one man is found to quantum of circumstantial evidence to prove that accused-
A Marlon and Ronald, sir.
have killed another, if the circumstances of the homicide appellants, in confabulation with their co-accused, conspired to
do not of themselves show that it was not intended, but kill and did kill Modesto:
was accidental, it is presumed that the death of the Q Will you please stand up and point to them?
deceased was designed by the slayer; and the burden of 1. Randy Bantas testified that Marlon and Ronald barged into the
proof is on him to show that it was otherwise." house of Modesto, each armed with a handgun. Marlon poked his A (Witness is pointing to a person seated on the
gun on Modesto while Ronald hog-tied Modesto. They then bench inside the courtroom, who, when his name was
seized Modesto and herded him out of his house: asked answered Marlon Delim. Likewise, witness is
pointing unto a person seated on the bench inside the
courtroom, who, when his name was asked he answered A Manuel Delim and Leon Delim said, 'Stay in your PROSECUTOR TOMBOC: You said that Marlon Delim,
Ronald Delim). house,' and guarded us. Robert Delim and Bongbong entered your house, are
these three (3) persons who entered your house in Court
Q You said that these two armed persons entered COURT: You said your father was taken out, who? now?
your house, what kind of arm were they carrying at that
time? A Marlon, Robert and Ronald, sir. A They are here except the other one, sir.

A Short handgun, sir. FISCAL TOMBOC: Where did these three persons bring Q Will you please step down and point to the persons
your father? who entered your house?
Q When these three armed persons whom you have
mentioned, armed with short firearms, what did they do A I do not know where they brought my father, sir. A Witness is pointing to Marlon Delim, Robert Delim
then when they entered your house? is not in Court and Bongbong is Ronald Delim.
COURT: Was your father taken inside your house or
A They took my father, sir. outside? Q After these three (3) armed men entered your
house, what happened then?
Q Who took your father? A Inside our house, sir.
A My husband was brought out, sir.
A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and Ronald Delim, sir. Q You said that Marlon poked a gun at your father,
is that correct? Q What is the name of your husband?
Q When these three persons took your father, what
did you do then? A Yes, sir. A Modesto Delim, sir."37

A None, sir. Q What did Ronald and Robert do while Marlon was 2. Randy said that when Marlon and Ronald barged into their
poking his gun to your father? house, Leon, armed with a handgun, acted as a lookout when he
COURT: How did they get your father? stood guard by the door of the house of Modesto and remained
A Ronald and Robert were the ones who pulled my thereat until 7:00 a.m. of the next day:
A They poked a gun and brought him outside the father out, sir."36
house, sir. "FISCAL TOMBOC: When your father was pulled out from
Randy's account of the incident was corroborated by his mother, your house by these three persons, what did you and
FISCAL TOMBOC: Who poked a gun? Rita, who testified: your mother do while these three persons were taking
out of your house?
A Marlon Delim, sir. "PROSECUTION TOMBOC: You said during the last
hearing that on January 23, 1999 at around 6:30 in the A We did not do anything because Manuel and Leon
evening while preparing for your supper three (3) armed Delim guarded us.
Q Again, Mr. Witness, will you point to the person
who poked a gun? men entered inside your house, who were these three
(3) men who entered your house? COURT: Where, in your house?
A (Witness is pointing to Malon (sic) Delim, one of
the accused). A I know, Marlon, Bongbong and Robert, sir. A Yes, sir.

Q After bringing your father out from your house, ATTY. FLORENDO: We just make of record that the FISCAL TOMBOC: From that very time that your father
what transpired next? witness is taking her time to answer, Your Honor. was pulled out by these three persons Marlon, Robert
and Ronal (sic), where were Leon and Manuel then?
 A They were at the door, sir. 4. Randy likewise testified that on January 27, 1999, at about 3:00 FISCAL TOMBOC: You said that he was already dead,
p.m., the cadaver of Modesto was found under the thick bushes what was his appearance then when you saw him dead?
COURT: Why do you know that they were guarding you? in a grassy area in the housing project located about 200 meters
away from the house of Modesto. The cadaver exuded bad odor A He has bad odor, sir, in the state of decompsition
A Because they were at the door, sir. and was already in the state of decomposition: (sic)." 39

FISCAL TOMBOC: What was their appearance that time "Q So what did you do then on January 27, where The testimony of Randy was corroborated by Dr. de Guzman who
when these two persons were guarding you, these Leon did you look for your father? testified that the cadaver of Modesto was in a state of
and Manuel? decomposition, with tiny white worms crawling from his wounds,
A The same place and at 3:00 o'clock P.M., we were and that his penis and scrotum were inflamed. The victim
A They were armed, sir. able to find my father. sustained five gunshot wounds and defensive wounds on the left
arm and forearm:
Q What do you mean by armed? COURT: Where?
"PROS. TOMBOC:
A They have gun, sir. A At the housing project at Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan,
sir. Q Will you please tell the Honorable Court your
findings, Doctora?
Q What kind of firearm?
FISCAL TOMBOC: Do you have companions at that time
when you were able to look for your father on January WITNESS:
A Short firearm, sir.
27, 1999 at 3:00 o'clock P.M.?
A First finding: Upon seeing the cadaver, this is the
Q By the way, where are these Leon and Manuel
A Yes, sir. position of the body, both upper extremities are flexed
now, if you know?
and both lower extremities are flexed (Nakakukot).
Q Who?
A Leon is here, sir.
Q How many days had already elapsed when you
A My Aunt, sir. autopsied the cadaver of the victim, Doctora?
Q About Manuel?

Q What is the name of your Aunt? A Four (4) days upon the recovery of the body, sir.
A None, sir.

A Nida Pucal, sir. Q And what was your findings Doctora?

Q Will you please stand up and point at Leon, Mr.
Witness?
Q Who else? A The body was already under the state of
decomposition, sir, with foul odor and there were so
A (Witness pointed to a person seated on the bench
A Pepito Pucal, Bernard Osias and Daniel Delim, sir. many worms coming out from the injuries, there were
inside the courtroom, who when his name was asked,
tiny white worms, sir.
answered, Leon Delim)."38
COURT: When you found your father, what was his
condition? Q What else did you observe Doctora?
3. Rita and Randy were ordered by Leon not to leave the house as
Ronald and Marlon left the house with Modesto in tow. Rita and
A He was dead, sir. A Upon seeing the cadaver I asked the relative to
Randy were detained in their house up to 7:00 a.m. of January 24,
refer it to the NBI sir. Actually the victim was an igorot
1999 to prevent them from seeking help from their relatives and
(sic) and they have tradition that they will bury
police authorities. COURT: Go ahead.
immediately. Whether they like it or not I should do it, Q Those stabbed wounds were defensive wounds, A Yes, sir, she elaborated that the suspects were
sir. Doctora? their neighbors, Marlon Delim and his brothers, sir.

Q What else Doctora? A Yes sir."40 Q What are the names of the brothers?

A And the penis was inflammed (sic), the scrotum The state of decomposition of the cadaver, with tiny white worms A Manuel Delim, Leon Delim I cannot remember the
was also inflammed (sic), sir. swarming and feasting on it and the distention of his scrotum and others, sir.
penis are evidence that the cadaver was in the stage of
And for the head injuries there was 10 x 10 ml. GSW pre- putrefaction and that the victim had been dead for a period Q By reason of that information were you able to
auricular area, right; there was also 20 ml x 20 ml. GSW, ranging from three to six days.41 Admittedly, there are variant apprehend any of them for investigation?
mandibular area, right; I cannot also determine the exit. factors determinative of the exact death of the victim. An equally
persuasive authority states: A No, sir.
Q So there were two (2) gunshot wounds (GSW)
Doctora? "Chronological Sequence of Putrefactive Changes Occurring in Tropical Region:
Q Why?
Time Since Death Condition of the Body
A Yes sir. A Because when we were dispatched by the Chief of
48 hours Ova of flies seen. Trunk bloated. Face discolored
Police noand swollen.
Delim Blisters
brothers present.
could be found, Moving
they all left the
And there was also 10 x 10 ml. GSW, maxillary area, right; maggots seen place, sir.
there was also 10 x 10 ml. GSW, below middle nose, 72 hours Whole body grossly swollen and disfigured. Hair and nails loose. Tissues soft and discolored."42
directed upward (POE); and there was also 30 x 40 ml. Q In what place did you look for the brothers Delim?
GSW, mid parieto-occipital area (POEx).
The lapse of two or three to four days from the seizure of the
victim in the evening of January 23, 1999 to the discovery of his A Within the vicinity, sir.
Q How many all in all are the gunshot wound?
cadaver which was already in the state of putrefaction in the
afternoon of January 27, 1999, about 200 meters away from his Q In what place?
A Five (5) sir. house, is consistent with and confirmatory of the contention of
the prosecution that the victim was killed precisely by the very A Brgy. Bila and the place where the crime was
And also there was 2 x 1 cms. Lacerated wound, malefactors who seized him on January 23, 1999. committed in Brgy. Bila and the place where the cadaver
right cheek; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, axillary was found in Paldit, sir.
area, left; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, lateral 5. When police authorities went to the residences of all the
aspect M/3rd, left arm; 1 x 1 cm. stabbed malefactors, the latter had flown the coop and were nowhere to Q Where did you look for the Delim brothers?
wound lateral aspect D/3rd, left arm; 1 x 1 cm. be found:
stabbed wound, medial aspect M/3rd, left arm;
A Nearby barangays, Immalog, sir.
1 x 1 cm. stabbed wound, medial aspect D/3rd,
"COURT: In connection with this case, you investigated
left arm; and #3; 1 x 1 cm. in line with each
the wife and son of Modesto Delim? Q Wherelse (sic)?
other, stabbed wound, medial aspect, M/3rd,
left forearm.
A Yes, sir. A Labayog, Sison, sir.
Q How many stabbed wound are there Doctora?
Q In the course of the investigation did you come to Q Wherelse?
know who were the suspects?
A There were seven (7) stabbed wounds, sir.
A In mountainous part of Immalog, part of Tuba
Benguet, sir.
 Q What was the result? It is true that the prosecution failed to prove motive on the part There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a
of the malefactors to abduct and kill Modesto. Indeed, Randy and felony and decide to commit it.48 Conspiracy must be proven with
A Negative result, sir."43 Rita testified that they were not aware of any misunderstanding the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more
or grudge between Modesto on the one hand and Marlon, Ronald specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy is not
6. Leon was the neighbor of Modesto and Rita while Marlon and and Leon and their co-accused on the other before the incident, presumed. It may be proved by direct evidence or by
Ronald used to go to the house of Modesto and Rita: or any motivation on the part of the three malefactors to cause circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy is deducible from the acts of
harm to Modesto. Nonetheless, it cannot thereby be concluded the malefactors before, during and after the commission of the
that a person or persons other than Marlon, Ronald and Leon crime which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action
"COURT: These Leon and Manuel Delim are they known
were criminally responsible for the death of the victim. It is a and concurrence of sentiment.49 To establish conspiracy, it is not
to you prior to that day, January 23, 1999?
matter of judicial notice that nowadays persons have killed or essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous
committed serious crimes for no reason at all.46 In this case, the agreement to commit a crime.50 It is sufficient if, at the time of
A Yes, sir, I know them.
inscrutable facts are that Marlon and Ronald, each of whom was the commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose
armed with a handgun, forcibly took Modesto from his house at and were united in its execution. If conspiracy is established, the
Q Why do you know Manuel and Leon prior to the gunpoint, hog-tied, put a piece of cloth in his mouth and after act of one is deemed the act of all. It matters not who among the
January 23, 1999? Ronald and Marlon had left the house with Modesto in tow, Rita accused actually shot and killed the victim.51 This is based on the
heard three gunshots or so and the cadaver of Modesto was theory of a joint or mutual agency ad hoc for the prosecution of
A They are my neighbors, sir. found concealed under the bushes and already in a state of the common plan:
putrefaction in the afternoon of January 27, 1999. Modesto
Q How about Marlon, Robert and Bongbong do you sustained several gunshot wounds and died because of a gunshot "x x x The acts and declarations of an agent, within the
know them before January 23, 1999? wound on the head. The criminal acts and the connection of scope of his authority, are considered and treated as the
Marlon, Ronald and Leon with said acts having been proved by acts and declarations of his principal. 'What is so done by
A I know them, sir. the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the act itself furnishes an agent, is done by the principal, through him, as his
the evidence, that to its perpetration there was some causes or mere instrument.' Franklin Bank of Baltimore v.
Q Why do you know them? influences moving the mind.47 The remarkable tapestry intricately Pennsylvania D. & M. Steam Navigation Co., 11 G. & J.
woven by the prosecution should not be trashed simply because 28, 33 (1839). 'If the conspiracy be proved to have
the malefactors had no motive to kill Modesto. existed, or rather if evidence be given to the jury of its
A They used to go to our house, sir.
existence, the acts of one in furtherance of the common
Ranged against the evidence of the prosecution, the burden of design are the acts of all; and whatever one does in
Q I noticed that Marlon, Bongbong, Robert, Manuel
evidence shifted on Marlon, Ronald and Leon to rebut the same furtherance of the common design, he does as the agent
and Leon are all Delims and your husband's name is
and explain what happened to the victim after taking him from his of the co-conspirators.' R. v. O'Connell, 5 St.Tr. (N.S.) 1,
Modesto Delim are they related with each other?
house in the evening of January 23, 1999. They may have freed 710."52
the victim shortly after taking him, or the victim may have been
A Yes, sir."44 able to escape and that thereafter a person or some other In the eyes of the law, conspirators are one man, they breathe
persons may have killed him. However, Marlon, Ronald and Leon one breath, they speak one voice, they wield one arm and the law
The sudden disappearance of Marlon, Ronald and Leon from their failed to give any explanation. Instead, they merely denied having says that the acts, words and declaration of each, while in the
houses in Barangay Bila, Sison is strong circumstantial evidence of seized and killed the victim and interposed alibi as their defense. pursuit of the common design, are the acts, words and
their guilt for the death of Modesto. Although flight after the declarations of all.53
commission of an offense does not create a legal presumption of Leon is equally guilty for the death of Modesto because the
guilt, nevertheless, the same is admissible in evidence against evidence on record shows that he conspired with accused- In the case at bar, Marlon, Ronald and Leon arrived together in
them and if not satisfactorily explained in a manner consistent appellants Marlon and Ronald and accused Robert and Manuel in the house of Modesto, each armed with a handgun. Marlon and
with their innocence, will tend to show that they, in fact, killed killing the victim. Ronald barged into said house while Leon stood guard by the door
Modesto.45
thereof. After Marlon and Ronald had left with Modesto in tow,
Leon stood by the door and warned Randy and Rita not to leave
the house. Leon stood guard by the door of the house until 7:00 4. Rita claimed that she went out to look for her husband Randy's testimony that he did know where the malefactors
a.m. of January 24, 1999 when he left the house. The overt acts the next day, or on January 25, 1999, and she was brought his father is not inconsistent with his testimony that
of all the malefactors were so synchronized and executed with accompanied by her son Randy. However, Randy Ronald and Marlon brought his father towards the direction of
precision evincing a preconceived plan or design of all the testified that he was alone when he looked for his father Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Randy may not have known the
malefactors to achieve a common purpose, namely the killing of from January 24 to 26, 1999.58 destination of accused-appellants but he saw the direction to
Modesto. Irrefragably, the tasks assigned to Leon in the which they went. While it may be true that when asked to identify
commission of the crime were — (a) to act as a lookout; (b) to We do not agree with Marlon, Ronald and Leon. Case law has it the three who barged into their house, Rita pointed to Leon as
ensure that Rita and Randy remain in their house to prevent them that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the one of them, however, Rita had been consistent throughout her
from seeking assistance from police authorities and their relatives collective testimonies of witnesses and its assessment of the testimony that those who barged into their house were Ronald
before their mission to kill Modesto shall have been a fait probative weight thereof and its conclusions culled from its and Marlon. Leon's counsel never cross-examined Rita and
accompli as well as the escape of Marlon and Ronald.54 Patently, findings are accorded by the appellate court great respect, if not impeached her testimony on her identification of Leon as one of
Leon, a lookout for the group, is guilty of the killing of conclusive effect, because of its unique advantage of observing at those who barged into their house to give her an opportunity to
Modesto.55 Leon may not have been at the situs criminis when close range the demeanor, deportment and conduct of the explain her perceived inconsistency conformably with Rule 132,
Modesto was killed by Marlon and Ronald nevertheless he is a witnesses as they give their testimonies before the court. Section 13, of the Revised Rules of Evidence which reads:
principal by direct participation.56 If part of a crime has been
committed in one place and part in another, each person In the present case, the trial court gave credence and full "Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he
concerned in the commission of either part is liable as principal. probative weight to the testimonies of the witnesses of the has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
No matter how wide may be the separation of the conspirators, if prosecution. Moreover, there is no evidence on record that Randy present testimony, the statements must be related to
they are all engaged in a common plan for the execution of a and Rita were moved by any improper or ill motive in testifying him, with the circumstances of the times and places and
felony and all take their part in furtherance of the common against the malefactors and the other accused; hence, their the persons present, and he must be asked whether he
design, all are liable as principals. Actual presence is not necessary testimonies must be given full credit and probative weight. 59 The made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain
if there is a direct connection between the actor and the crime. 57 inconsistencies in the testimonies of Rita and Randy do not render them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown
them incredible or their testimonies barren of probative weight. to the witness before any question is put to him
Ronald, Marlon and Leon, however, assail the testimonies of It must be borne in mind that human memory is not as unerring concerning them."64
Randy and Rita alleging that the same were marred by as a photograph and a person's sense of observation is impaired
inconsistencies. by many factors including the shocking effect of a crime. A truth- Hence, the presentation of the inconsistent statements made by
telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free Rita is insufficient for the desired impeachment of her. 65 As to
1. Randy initially stated that he did not know where the testimony considering the lapse of time and the treachery of whether Rita and Randy were together in looking for Modesto or
assailants brought his father. Later however, Randy human memory. What is primordial is that the mass of testimony Leon merely stood guard by the door of the house or entered the
claimed that the malefactors proceeded to the direction jibes on material points, the slight clashing of statements dilute house are inconsequential. The fact is that Leon stood guard
of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan; neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of his throughout the night to prevent Rita and Randy from seeking
testimony.60 Variations on the testimony of witnesses on the assistance for the seizure and killing of Modesto.
2. Rita on the other hand identified Leon, Marlon and same side with respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters
Ronald as those who barged into their house. She later do not impair the weight of their united testimony to the This Court is convinced, as the trial court was, that the respective
changed her testimony and declared that it was Robert, prominent facts.61 Inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters testimonies of Randy and Rita bear the earmarks of truth and
together with Marlon and Ronald who barged into the only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of sincerity. Despite intense and grueling cross-examination, they
house; witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony. 62 responded with consistency upon material details that could only
come from a firsthand knowledge of the shocking events which
3. Rita likewise testified that two men stood outside the Moreover, the testimony of a witness should be construed in its unfolded before their eyes. The Court thus finds no cogent reason
house guarding them. Later, she testified that after the entirety and not in truncated terms and the true meaning of to disregard the findings of the trial court regarding their
three men brought out the victim, the two other accused answers to isolated questions propounded to a witness is to be credibility.
entered the house and guarded them there; ascertained by due consideration of all the questions propounded
to the witness and his answers thereto.63
Marlon, Ronald and Leon contend that the trial court committed are utterly insufficient and cannot produce the effect of qualifying Although the special aggravating circumstance of the use of
a reversible error in not giving credence and probative weight to the crime.68 As this Court held: "No matter how truthful these unlicensed firearms was proven during the trial, there is no
their evidence to prove their defense of alibi. They aver that their suppositions or presumptions may seem, they must not and allegation in the Information that Marlon, Ronald and Leon had
collective evidence to prove their defense is strong. cannot produce the effect of aggravating the condition of no license to possess the firearm. Lack of license to possess a
defendant."69Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code firearm is an essential element of the crime of violation of PD
We do not agree. Case law has it that the defense of alibi is one provides that there is treachery when the offender commits any 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, or as a special
of the weakest of defenses in criminal prosecution because the of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or aggravating circumstance in the felony of homicide or
same is easy to concoct between relatives, friends and even those forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially murder.76 Neither can dwelling, although proven, aggravate the
not related to the offender.66 It is hard for the prosecution to to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the crime because said circumstance was not alleged in the
disprove. For alibi to merit approbation by the trial court and this defense which the offended party might make. For treachery to Information as required by Rule 110, Section 8, of the Revised
Court, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are burdened to prove with clear be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, the prosecution is Rules of Court.77 Although this rule took effect on December 1,
and convincing evidence that they were in a place other than the burdened to prove the following elements: (a) the employment 2000, after the commission of the offense in this case,
situs criminis at the time of the commission of the crime; that it of means of execution which gives the person attacked no nonetheless it had been given retroactive effect considering that
was physically impossible for them to have committed the said opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; (b) the means of the rule is favorable to the accused.78
crime.67 They failed to discharge their burden. Moreover, Rita and execution is deliberately or consciously adopted.70 Although the
Randy positively and spontaneously identified Marlon, Ronald victim may have been defenseless at the time he was seized but There being no modifying circumstances in the commission of
and Leon as the culprits. The house of Ronald, where he claimed there is no evidence as to the particulars of how he was assaulted homicide, Marlon, Ronald and Leon should be meted an
he was when the crime was committed, was only two kilometers and killed, treachery cannot be appreciated against the indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which shall be taken from
away from the house of Modesto and can be negotiated by a accused.71 In this case, the victim was defenseless when seized by the entirety of prision mayor, ranging from 6 years and one day to
tricycle. Leon failed to adduce any documentary evidence to Marlon and Ronald. However, the prosecution failed to present 12 years and the maximum period of which shall be taken from
prove his employment by Sally Asuncion. The barefaced fact that any witness or conclusive evidence that Modesto was defenseless the medium period of reclusion temporal, ranging from 14 years,
he was a resident of Laoag City does not constitute proof that he immediately before and when he was attacked and killed. It 8 months and one day to 17 years and 4 months.
was in Laoag City on the day of the commission of the crime. With cannot be presumed that although he was defenseless when he
respect to Marlon, he failed to adduce evidence aside from his was seized the victim was in the same situation when he was Consequently, the award for damages in favor of the heirs of the
self-serving testimony that he resided in, left Dumaguete City and attacked, shot and stabbed by the malefactors. To take advantage victim should be modified. The sum of P75,000.00 awarded as
arrived in Manila on January 29, 1999. of superior strength means to purposely use force that is out of moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance
proportion to the means of defense available to the person with prevailing jurisprudence.79 The amount of P25,000.00 as
The trial court convicted Marlon, Ronald and Leon of murder with attacked.72 What is primordial, this Court held in People v. Rogelio exemplary damages is in order.80 In addition, civil indemnity in the
the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of Modesto. Francisco73 is that the assailants deliberately took advantage of amount of P50,000.00 should be awarded without need of proof,
The trial court likewise appreciated nighttime and abuse of their combined strength in order to consummate the crime. It is likewise in consonance with prevailing jurisprudence. 81
superior strength and the use of unlicensed firearms as separate necessary to show that the malefactors cooperated in such a way
aggravating circumstances. The Office of the Solicitor General as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.74 In this
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the trial court is
contends that indeed treachery was attendant in the killing of case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Marlon and
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants Marlon
Modesto. Hence, Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty of murder Ronald deliberately took advantage of their numerical superiority
Delim, Ronald Delim and Leon Delim are hereby found guilty
defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. when Modesto was killed. The barefaced facts that the
beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Homicide defined in
malefactors outnumbered Modesto and were armed while
and penalized by Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. There
Modesto was not does not constitute proof that the three took
The Court however finds that Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime,
advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns
only of homicide defined in and penalized by Article 248 of the each of accused-appellants is hereby meted an indeterminate
when Modesto was shot and stabbed.75
Revised Penal Code. penalty of from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in
its maximum period as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
In sum then, we believe that Marlon, Ronald and Leon are guilty months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its medium
Qualifying circumstances such as treachery and abuse of superior
only of Homicide defined in and penalized by Article 249 of the period as maximum. Accused-appellants are hereby ordered to
strength must be alleged and proved clearly and conclusively as
Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal in its full period. pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of the victim the amount of
the crime itself. Mere conjectures, suppositions or presumptions
P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, the amount of P50,000.00 kill, treachery, evident premeditation, conspiring with Randy finally reported the incident to the police. In the meantime,
by way of moral damages and the amount of P25,000.00 by way one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and the distressed son scoured the vicinity of Paldit, Pangasinan, to
of exemplary damages. feloniously grab, hold, hog-tie, gag with a piece of cloth, look for his father. He was nowhere to be found. Days passed.
brought out and abduct Modesto Delim, (while) accused Then, one day, he stumbled upon the decomposing body of his
SO ORDERED. Leon and Manuel Delim stayed in the house (and) father at a thick grassy portion of a housing project in Paldit,
guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto Sison, Pangasinan, some 200 meters from their house. Dr. Ma. Fe
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of Lagmay de Guzman, who conducted the autopsy, found the
Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto corpse riddled with five fatal gunshot wounds, seven stab wounds
and Azcuna, JJ., concur. Delim, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs. and several "defensive" wounds.
Vitug, J., see separate opinion.
Ynares-Santiago, J., joins the dissenting opinion of J. Vitug. "Contrary to Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as The victim's surviving spouse Rita Manalo Bantas and son Randy
Gutierrez, J., joins Justice Vitug in his dissenting opinion. amended by Republic Act No. 7659."2 Manalo Bantas could not understand why anyone would want
Modesto killed. The family was completely unaware of any
The evidence would show that Modesto Delim was forcibly possible motive for the nabbing and killing of Modesto Delim or
abducted from his residence by appellants, all armed, on the night of any bad blood between Modesto and the five indictees.
of 23 January 1999. But to say that the same group was also
Separate Opinions responsible for his death, days later, or that his violent end was On 14 January 2000, the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City,
the consequence of the abduction, and nothing more, would be Branch 46, rejecting the defense of alibi, convicted Ronald,
to unduly put to risk our standard of moral certainty required for Marlon, and Leon for murder; it held:
VITUG, J.:
all convictions.
"WHEREFORE, judgment of conviction beyond
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which relates to
It was approximately six-thirty on the evening of 23 January 1999. reasonable doubt is hereby rendered against Ronald
a series of facts other than the fact in issue which, by experience,
Three armed men suddenly barged into the house of Modesto Delim, Marlon Delim and Leon Delim (for) the
are found to be so associated with such fact that, in relation of
Delim in Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan. Modesto, who was then commission of Aggravated Murder, an offense defined
cause and effect, they lead to a veritable conclusion. There
about to take his supper with his wife Rita Manalo Bantas, his and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
should, for circumstantial evidence to warrant a criminal
teen-age son Randy Manalo Bantas, and his two grandchildren, Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 and the Court sentences
conviction, be a) more than one circumstance; b) proof of the
was suddenly seized by the intruders. Randy identified the Marlon Delim, Ronald Delim and Leon Delim to suffer the
facts from which the inference is derived; and c) a clear showing
malefactors to be their neighbors — Marlon, Robert, and Ronald, penalty of death, to be implemented in the manner as
that the combination of all the circumstances can aptly support a
all surnamed Delim. Without any word, the trio went straight for provided for by law; the Court likewise ordered the
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.1 The use of circumstantial
Modesto. Randy saw Marlon poke a gun at his father while Ronald accused, jointly and solidarily, to indemnify the heirs of
evidence in criminal cases, prompted by sheer necessity, has long
and Robert held back his arms and brought him outside the Modesto Delim the sum of P75,000.00 as moral
been an accepted, practice but with one important caveat — it
house. Two more armed cohorts, namely, Manuel and Leon, both damages, plus the amount of P25,000.00 as exemplary
must be used with utmost care and, when its exacting standards
also surnamed Delim, stood guard by the door. No words were damages."3
are not met, it is correctly ignored.
uttered to interrupt the heavy silence except when one of the two
men told the stunned family members to stay where they were. In assailing the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt by the
On 04 May 1999, the following Information was filed against
All through the night, both Manuel and Leon Delim kept watch court a quo, appellants stress on what they claim to be
Marlon, Leon, Manuel, Robert and Ronald, all surnamed
outside the door and only left at around seven o'clock in the inconsistencies in the testimony of Randy Manalo Bantas and that
Delim; viz:
morning of the next day. of Rita Manalo Bantas. I agree with my colleagues that the trial
court has not erred in regarding the so-called inconsistencies as
"That on or about January 23, 1999 in the evening at
Soon after Manuel Delim and Leon Delim had left, Randy being minor and trivial that hardly can affect the credibility of the
Brgy. Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction
immediately sought the help of his Uncle Darwin Niño who witnesses. The narration given by Randy Manalo Bantas and Rita
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
forthwith told him to bring the matter to the authorities. But it Manalo Bantas at the witness stand, identifying each of the
armed with short firearms barged in and entered the
was only two days later that, in the company of his Uncle Melchor, appellants and detailing their individual participation in the
house of Modesto Delim and once inside with intent to
incident, could not have been more spontaneous and "A They took my father, sir. Where did these three persons bring your
straightforward; thus — father?
"Q Who took your father?
Testimony of Randy Manalo Bantas "A I do not know where they brought my father, sir.
"A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and Ronald Delim,
"Q While taking your supper that time, do you recall sir. "COURT:
if there was anything unusual that happened at that
time? "Q When these three persons took your father, what Was your father taken inside your house or
did you do then? outside?
"A When we were about to start to eat, three armed
men entered our house. "A None, sir. "A Inside our house, sir.

"Q Do you know these three armed men who "COURT: "Q You said that Marlon poked a gun at your father,
entered your house? is that correct?
How did they get your father?
"A Yes, sir. "A Yes, sir.
"A They poked a gun and brought him outside the
"Q Who were they, name them one by one. house, sir. "Q What did Ronald and Robert do while Marlon was
poking his gun at your father?
"A Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and Ronald Delim. "FISCAL TOMBOC:
"A Ronald and Robert were the ones who pulled my
"Q Are these three persons inside the courtroom Who poked a gun? father out, sir.
now?
"A Marlon Delim, sir. "FISCAL TOMBOC:
"A Two of them, sir.
"xxx xxx xxx When your father was pulled out from your
"Q Who are these two who are inside the house by these three persons, what did you and
courtroom? "Q After bringing your father out from your house, your mother do while these three persons were
what transpired next? taking your father out of your house?
"A Marlon and Ronald, sir.
"A Manuel Delim and Leon Delim said, 'Stay in your "A We did not do anything because Manuel and Leon
xxx xxx xxx house,' and guarded us. Delim guarded us.

"Q You said that these two armed persons entered "COURT: "xxx xxx xxx
your house; what kind of arms were they carrying at that
time? You said your father was taken out, who? "FISCAL TOMBOC:

"A Short handguns, sir. "A Marlon, Robert and Ronald, sir. What was their appearance that time when
these two persons were guarding you, these
"Q When these three armed persons whom you have Leon and Manuel?
"FISCAL TOMBOC:
mentioned, armed with short firearms, what did they do
when they entered your house? "A They were armed, sir.
"Q What do you mean by armed? entered inside your house, who were these "Q Who were these two (2) persons who guarded
three (3) men who entered your house? you?
"A They have [a] gun, sir.
"A I know, Marlon, Bongbong and Robert, sir. "A Leon and Manuel, sir.
"Q What kind of firearm?
"xxx xxx xxx "xxx xxx xxx
"A Short firearm, sir.
"PROSECUTOR TOMBOC "COURT
"xxx xxx xxx
You said that Marlon Delim, Robert Delim and You said the two (2) Leon and Manuel stayed at
"FISCAL TOMBOC: Bongbong entered your house, are these three the door guarding you, is that correct?`
(3) persons who entered your house in Court
You said that you were guarded by Leon and now? "A Yes, sir.
Manuel, how long did these two persons guard
you in your house? "A They are here except the other one, sir. "Q What made you say that you are guarded by
them?
"A Up to the morning, sir. "Q Will you please step down and point to the
persons who entered your house? "A Because they have guns with them, sir.
"Q You know what time?
"A Witness is pointing to Marlon Delim, Robert Delim "PROSECUTOR TOMBOC
"A Yes, sir, [seven o'clock]. is not in Court and Bongbong is Ronald Delim.
Do you know what kind of firearm were they
"xxx xxx xxx "Q After these three (3) armed men entered your holding?
house, what happened then?
"Q When [seven o'clock] arrived, you said that they "A I don't know, sir.
guarded you up to [seven o'clock], what did these two, "A My husband was brought out, sir.
Leon and Manuel, do then? "Q But you can describe whether long or short
"xxx xxx xxx firearm?
"A They left, sir.
"PROSECUTOR TOMBOC "A Short firearms, sir.
"Q Do you know where they went?
Who brought your husband out of your house "Q What did you do then when these two (2) armed
"A No, sir." 4 on January 23, 1999 at 6:30 in the evening? persons guarded you in your house?

Testimony of Rita Manalo Bantas "A Marion Delim, Bongbong and Robert Delim, sir. "A We did not do anything because we were afraid,
sir.
"PROSECUTOR TOMBOC "Q Then after Marlon Delim, Bongbong and Robert
Delim brought your husband out what transpired next? "COURT
You said during the last hearing that on January
23, 1999 at around 6:30 in the evening while "A The two (2) stayed at the door of our house to These Leon and Manuel Delim are they known
preparing for your supper three (3) armed men guard us, sir. to you prior to that day, January 23, 1999?
"A Yes, sir, I know them. "Q Why do you say [that] he did not go voluntarily? on the early evening of 23 January 1999. Leon and Manuel stayed
well into the night and left only at seven o'clock in the morning of
"Q Why do you know Manuel and Leon prior to "A Because they held his hand and brought him the next day. The certificate of residency issued by the barangay
January 23, 1999? outside, sir. captain of Salet, Laoag City, only confirmed that Leon Delim was
a co-resident of the barangay but it did not establish with any
"A They are my neighbors, sir. "PROSECUTOR TOMBOC degree of certainty that Leon Delim had not left Laoag City on the
day of the incident. Appellant Ronald Delim, in his case, said that
he was home at Asan Norte with his family when the abduction
"Q How about Marlon, Robert and Bongbong do you You said they held the hand of your husband,
and the brutal slaying of Modesto Delim occurred. Ronald himself
know them before January 23, 1999? will you please demonstrate how he was
confirmed, however, that Asan Norte was a mere ten-minute
brought outside?
bicycle ride from the victim's house at Paldit, Pangasinan. Alibi, to
"A I know them, sir.
be believed, must invariably place the accused at such location as
"A They held the 2 hands placed at the back and they
to render it physically impossible for him to be at the place of the
"Q Why do you know them? brought outside my husband, sir.
crime and, let alone, to commit the same. The claim, upon the
other hand, of appellant Marlon Delim that he was at Dumaguete
"A They used to go to our house, sir. "Q Who among the 3 men held the hands of your City during the fateful day of 23 to 24 January 1999 remained to
husband? be just a bare assertion; it was not corroborated even by his sister
"xxx xxx xxx in Dumaguete whom, he said, he worked for.
"A Marlon, Bongbong and Robert, Sir.
"Q You said that Leon and Manuel Delim guarded The evidence would indeed point out that Marlon, Ronald and
the door of your house, how long did they stay there? "COURT Robert seized Modesto Delim from his house while Leon and
Manuel stood guard and stayed at the door of the victim's
"A The whole night up to [seven] o'clock the Did your husband resist when they held the house. Randy Manalo Bantas and Rita Manalo Bantas, however,
following morning when they left the house, sir. hand? could only testify on the participation of each of the malefactors
in the abduction of Modesto Delim but not on what might have
"Q You said they left, do you know where they "A He did not resist, Sir."5 happened to him thereafter. In arriving at its verdict convicting
proceeded? appellants for "aggravated murder," the trial court considered the
Between the positive identification made by the eyewitnesses act of the accused of forcibly taking Modesto Delim from his house
and the bare denial of appellants, there is scarcely any serious as being likewise enough to substantiate the killing by them of the
"A I don't know where they [went], sir.
doubt but that decisive weight must be given to the positive victim. The conclusion could rightly be assailed. The accounts of
testimony of Randy Manalo Bantas and Rita Manalo Bantas.6 The Randy and his mother Rita would indicate that the forcible taking
"Q How about you, what did you do then when the of Modesto was carried out in absolute silence, with not one of the
two persons left your house? defense of alibi, being one that can easily be fabricated, is
inherently weak and cannot be expected to withstand the positive five intruders uttering any word which could give a clue on the
identification made by credible witnesses. reason for the abduction and, more particularly, whether the
"A I stayed at home because I [was] afraid, sir. same was carried out for the purpose of killing Modesto. The two
witnesses were unaware of any existing grudge between the
Randy Manalo Bantas, who was in the house when the five
"COURT malefactors and the victim that could have prompted them to
intruders entered their abode and took his father away, could not
violently snuff out the life of the latter. While the motive of an
have been mistaken in identifying the malefactors who not only
When the 3 persons brought your husband out accused in a criminal case might generally be immaterial, not
were neighbors but also had family ties with them as well.
did Modesto Delim go with them voluntarily? being an element of the crime, motive could be important and
According to Randy and Rita Manalo Bantas, it was appellant Leon
consequential when the evidence on the commission of the crime
Delim, together with Manuel Delim (at large), who stood guard at
"A No, sir. would be short of moral certainty.7
their house after the others, appellant Marlon Delim, Robert
Delim (at large) and appellant Ronald Delim, took Modesto away
In sustaining the conclusion of the trial court that the of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, In meting upon appellants the supreme penalty of death, the trial
five accused also snuffed out the life of Modesto Delim, provides: court has appreciated five aggravating circumstances of
the ponencia relied on circumstantial evidence testified to by treachery, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, dwelling, and
Randy Bantas. He recounted that, on the early evening of 23 "Article 267 Kidnapping and serious illegal use of unlicensed firearms. The Information specifies treachery,
January 1999, Marlon and Ronald barged into the house of detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap or abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation as being
Modesto, each armed with a handgun. Marlon poked his gun on detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his the aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime.
Modesto while Ronald hog-tied Modesto. They then seized liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to Treachery and superior strength, however, only pertain to crimes
Modesto and herded him out of the house. Leon, armed with a death: against persons. The crime of kidnapping, falling as it does within
handgun, acted as a lookout by standing guard by the door of the the classification of crimes against liberty, is aggravated neither
house of Modesto until seven o'clock in the morning of the next "1 If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more by treachery nor superior strength. The aggravating circumstance
day. Rita and Randy were ordered by Leon not to leave the house than three days. of evident premeditation can be appreciated when it is shown
as Ronald and Marlon left the house with Modesto in tow. On the that the culprits have previously reflected on the crime, or that
afternoon of 27 January 1999, the cadaver of Modesto was found they have prepared appropriate means to execute it, coolly taking
"2 If it shall have been committed simulating public
under the thick bushes in a grassy area in the housing project into account its consequences. The evidence is deficient in this
authority.
located about 200 meters away from the house of Modesto, respect. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling
exuding bad odor and in a state of decomposition. and use of unlicensed firearms, not having been alleged in the
"3 If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
Information, cannot be considered. The Revised Rules of Criminal
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to
The above recitals all point to only one established fact, i.e., that Procedure, rendered effective on 01 December 2000, 10 requires
kill him shall have been made.
the accused forcibly took Modesto Delim from his residence to an aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to be
unknown destination on the night of 23 January 1999, would be specified in the complaint or information.
"4 If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
scanty to support a conclusion that the five, aside from abducting
except when the accused is any of the parents, a female
the victim, likewise killed him. There was an unexplained gap in The crime of kidnapping is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
or a public officer.
what ought to have been a continuous chain of events. The body death. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating
bore several defensive wounds, which could give rise to the not circumstance that can be appreciated, the punishment that
too unlikely scenario that Modesto might have ultimately been "The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or should be imposed is the lesser penalty of reclusion
released by his abductors sometime before he was killed. detention was committed for the purpose of extorting perpetua than the penalty of death.11
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none
Recognizing that circumstantial evidence is as strong as the of the circumstances abovementioned were present in Now, on the civil aspect of the case. The law places abundant
the commission of the offense.
weakest link, this Court is bound not to ignore all other protective shields in order to ensure that no man shall be made
possibilities.8 It would seem to me that what has instead . been to account for a crime he might not have committed or be
shown and established beyond reasonable doubt is the guilt of "When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the adjudged guilty and meted a punishment without him having first
appellants for the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or been afforded a full opportunity to defend his cause. Thus, a
detention, the whereabouts of the victim — the immediate dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be conviction is pronounced only upon proof beyond reasonable
consequence of the abduction — for "more than three days" from imposed." doubt, preceded by an arraignment where he pleads on the basis
the time of his abduction not having been accounted for. The of a complaint or information that specifies the gravamen of the
allegation in the Information that the accused "willfully, The fact that the Information went further to charge the accused offense and the circumstances that are said to aggravate it and
unlawfully and feloniously grab(bed), h(e)ld, hog-tie(d), gag(ged), with the killing of the victim should be of no moment, the real then the trial where evidence is adduced by the parties. For
with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct(ed) Modesto nature of the criminal charge being determined not from the purposes of the civil liability, as well as its extent, civil law
Delim (while) Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house caption or the preamble of the Information nor from the principles, however, are applied, and damages might be accorded
(and) guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto Delim specification of the law alleged to have been violated — these to the aggrieved party upon a mere preponderance of evidence.
from helping the latter," constitutes the act of deprivation of being conclusions of law — but by the actual recital of facts in the There is, I believe, enough justification, albeit inadequate for
liberty and the gravamen in the crime of kidnapping. Article 267 complaint or information. 9 purposes of a criminal conviction, to hold appellants responsible
and civilly liable for the death of Modesto Delim whose body was
found riddled with bullets a few days after being forcibly aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or
abducted by appellants. qualifying, to be stated in the complaint or information.

Consonantly, appellants should be held liable, jointly and "xxx xxx xxx
severally, for civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for the death of the
victim, moral damages in an equal amount for the mental anguish "A court would thus be precluded from considering in its
suffered by his heirs and P25,000.00 exemplary damages because judgment the attendance of 'qualifying or aggravating
of the attendance of aggravating circumstances that were circumstances' if the complaint or information is bereft
established albeit not allowed to be considered in meting out the of any allegation on the presence of such circumstances.
sentence for the crime. Thus, in People vs. Catubig,12 the Court
has said: "The retroactive application of procedural rules,
nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the rights of the
"The term 'aggravating circumstances' used by the Civil private offended party that have become vested prior to
Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar,
understood in its broad or generic sense. The although relationship has not been alleged in the
commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one information, the offense having been committed,
on the public as it breaches the social order and the however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the
other upon the private victim as it causes personal civil liability already incurred by appellant remains
sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, unaffected thereby."
the prescription of heavier punishment for the accused
and by an award of additional damages to the victim. The WHEREFORE, I vote for the modification of the decision of the
increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, of Urdaneta City by instead
underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the holding appellants Ronald Delim, Marlon Delim and Leon Delim
attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping and
ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the Serious Illegal Detention, defined and penalized by Article 267 of
criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the the Revised Penal Code, and imposing on each of them the
award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as by ordering said
intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It appellants to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Modesto
would make little sense for an award of exemplary Delim the amounts of P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00
damages to be due the private offended party when the moral damages and P25,000.00 exemplary damages, with
aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld costs de officio.
when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying
nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction
that should only be of consequence to the criminal,
rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine,
relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should
entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary
damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of
the Civil Code.

"Relevantly, the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,

made effective on 01 December 2000, requires