Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    People Vs Delim

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    Marlon, Leon, and Ronald Delim were convicted of murdering Modesto Delim. Modesto was kidnapped from his home by the appellants, who were armed. His body was later found with gunshot wounds. The court found: 1) This was a case of murder, not kidnapping, as the primary intent was to kill Modesto. 2) The prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill, including eyewitness testimony and the condition of Modesto's body. 3) There was a conspiracy between the appellants to commit the murder, as proven by their coordinated actions before, during, and after the crime. 4) Witness testimonies were found to be valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Delim

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    1K views2 pages
    Marlon, Leon, and Ronald Delim were convicted of murdering Modesto Delim. Modesto was kidnapped from his home by the appellants, who were armed. His body was later found with gunshot wounds. The court found: 1) This was a case of murder, not kidnapping, as the primary intent was to kill Modesto. 2) The prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill, including eyewitness testimony and the condition of Modesto's body. 3) There was a conspiracy between the appellants to commit the murder, as proven by their coordinated actions before, during, and after the crime. 4) Witness testimonies were found to be valid

    Original Title

    305253811-People-vs-Delim.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marlon, Leon, and Ronald Delim were convicted of murdering Modesto Delim. Modesto was kidnapped from his home by the appellants, who were armed. His body was later found with gunshot wounds. The court found: 1) This was a case of murder, not kidnapping, as the primary intent was to kill Modesto. 2) The prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill, including eyewitness testimony and the condition of Modesto's body. 3) There was a conspiracy between the appellants to commit the murder, as proven by their coordinated actions before, during, and after the crime. 4) Witness testimonies were found to be valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    People Vs Delim

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    Marlon, Leon, and Ronald Delim were convicted of murdering Modesto Delim. Modesto was kidnapped from his home by the appellants, who were armed. His body was later found with gunshot wounds. The court found: 1) This was a case of murder, not kidnapping, as the primary intent was to kill Modesto. 2) The prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove intent to kill, including eyewitness testimony and the condition of Modesto's body. 3) There was a conspiracy between the appellants to commit the murder, as proven by their coordinated actions before, during, and after the crime. 4) Witness testimonies were found to be valid

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EN BANC

    [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.
    DECISION
    CALLEJO, SR., J.:
    Facts:
    Marlon, Leon & Ronald Delim were convicted for murder of Modesto Delim, resident of Bila,
    Sison, Pangasinan. Modesto is the adopted child of Marlons Dad. Marlon, Manuel & Robert are
    brothers & Leon & Ronald are their nephews. Around 6:30 pm, January 23, 1999, Modesto and
    family were preparing to eat dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald arrived. Marlon poked
    gun, other two grabbed, hog-tied and gagged Modesto. They herded him out of the hose and
    went to the direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Leon and Manuel guarded Rita & Randy until
    7 am and told them to stay put. They searched for him for 3 days and reported to police three
    days after the incident. Randy with relatives found Modesto in the housing project in Paldit
    under bushes. He was dead due to gunshot wound on head. The trial court rendered judgment
    finding accused-appellants guilty of murder.
    Issues:
    1. Whether case is murder or kidnapping?
    Murder: when primary purpose is to kill, deprivation is incidental and doesnt constitute
    kidnapping (US v. Ancheta). Specific intent: active desire to do certain criminal acts or particular
    purpose (example, murder and kidnappingkill and deprive victim of liberty) motive: reason
    which prompts accused to engage in particular criminal activity (ex. Kidnap for ransom- rasnom)
    essential for kidnapping. Information: described murder and kidnapping not specified.
    2. Whether prosecution had sufficient evidence?
    Yes. Prosecution proved intent to kill with their knives and handguns, 5 gun shot wounds and 4
    stab wounds (defensive). Furthermore, the pieces of circumstancial evidence were convincing:
    Rita and Randy testified events. Rita claimed she heard 3 gunshots and accordingly,
    decomposing body was found with gunshot wounds and stabs.
    3. Whether there was conspiracy?

    Yes. Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree and decide to commit a felony. This is
    proven by acts of criminal. Before during and after crime committed and that accused had same
    purpose and united in execution; act of one act of all. Wharton criminal lawactual presence not
    necessary if theres direct connection bet actor and crime
    4. Whether witness testimonies were valid?
    Yes. Inconsistencies mean and even strengthen. It was not rehearsed
    5. Whether alibi warranted?
    No. Positive identification over alibi. Unable to prove that they
    were in another place and impossible to go to crime scene
    6. Whether there was treachery and other aggravating circumstances?
    No. Treachery and taking advantage of superior strength was not proven as there was no witness
    or evidence. The unlicensed firearm and dwelling was further not included in information.
    Held: Conviction affirmed with modification

    You might also like