PEOPLE V.

DELIM

G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003

FACTS:

Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the
uncles of Leon and Ronald Delim. Modesto Delim, the victim
(deceased), was adopted by the father of the brothers. On
January 23, 1999, Modesto, Rita (wife), Randy (son) and their 2
grandchildren were about to eat their dinner when Marlon, Robert
and Ronald barged into the house. They were armed with a short
handgun. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and
Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece
of cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto.

They then herded Modesto out of the house on their way towards
the direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Leon and Manuel, also
armed with short handguns, stayed put by the door to the house
of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy to stay where they were.
Leon and Manuel left the house at around 7am the following day.
On January 27, 1999, Randy, in the company of his relatives,
found Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. He was
already dead. The cadaver was bloated and in the state of
decomposition. It exuded a bad odor. Tiny white worms swarmed
over and feasted on the cadaver. Randy and his relatives
immediately rushed to the police station to report the incident
and to seek assistance. According to the autopsy, the cause of
death was a gunshot wound at the head and the stab wounds
sustained by the victim on his left and forearm were defensive
wounds. The investigators confirmed that the accused had no
licenses for their firearms. Only Marlon, Ronald and Leon were
arrested. Manuel and Robert were not found. To exculpate
themselves, Marlon, Ronald and Leon interposed denial and alibi.
The trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellants
guilty of aggravated murder (The trialcourt appreciated treachery
as a qualifying circumstance)

Issue:

Whether the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of

evidence to prove that accused are guilty of murder

HELD:

The crime charged is murder. In determining what crime is

charged in an information, the material inculpatory facts recited
therein describing the crime charged in relation to the penal law
violated are controlling.

Where the specific intent of the malefactor is determinative of the

crime charged such specific intent must be alleged in the
information and proved by the prosecution. A decade ago, this
Court held in People v. Isabelo Puno, et al ., that for kidnapping
to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual specific
intent of the malefactor is to deprive the offended party of his
liberty and not where such restraint of his freedom of action is
merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily
intended by the malefactor. If the primary and ultimate purpose
of the accused is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation of
the victim's liberty does not constitute the felony of kidnapping
but is merely a preparatory act to the killing, and hence, is
merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of the victim.

The crime committed would either be homicide or murder.

What is primordial then is the specific intent of the malefactors as

disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is
determinative of what crime the accused is charged with that of
murder or kidnapping.