Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    46 - PP v. Dilim, SUPRA

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    This document discusses the difference between general intent and specific intent crimes using the case of People v. Delim. The defendants were charged with murdering Modesto Manalo Bantas. The court found that the information charged the defendants with murder, not kidnapping, because it alleged the specific intent was to kill the victim, not just deprive him of liberty. Specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved in court for crimes requiring specific intent like murder and kidnapping. The court held that specific intent involves the particular purpose or objective in committing the prohibited act.

    Copyright:

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

    46 - PP v. Dilim, SUPRA

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    60 views2 pages
    This document discusses the difference between general intent and specific intent crimes using the case of People v. Delim. The defendants were charged with murdering Modesto Manalo Bantas. The court found that the information charged the defendants with murder, not kidnapping, because it alleged the specific intent was to kill the victim, not just deprive him of liberty. Specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved in court for crimes requiring specific intent like murder and kidnapping. The court held that specific intent involves the particular purpose or objective in committing the prohibited act.

    Original Title

    46_Pp v. Dilim, SUPRA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the difference between general intent and specific intent crimes using the case of People v. Delim. The defendants were charged with murdering Modesto Manalo Bantas. The court found that the information charged the defendants with murder, not kidnapping, because it alleged the specific intent was to kill the victim, not just deprive him of liberty. Specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved in court for crimes requiring specific intent like murder and kidnapping. The court held that specific intent involves the particular purpose or objective in committing the prohibited act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    46 - PP v. Dilim, SUPRA

    Uploaded by

    Digesting Facts
    This document discusses the difference between general intent and specific intent crimes using the case of People v. Delim. The defendants were charged with murdering Modesto Manalo Bantas. The court found that the information charged the defendants with murder, not kidnapping, because it alleged the specific intent was to kill the victim, not just deprive him of liberty. Specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved in court for crimes requiring specific intent like murder and kidnapping. The court held that specific intent involves the particular purpose or objective in committing the prohibited act.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

     

    People v. Delim (GENERAL INTENT v. SPECIFIC INTENT)

    FACTS:
    Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon, together with Manuel alias Bong
    andRobert, all surnamed Delim, were indicted for murder of Modesto Manalo Bantas,
    who wasadopted by the father of the accused.On January 23, 1999, Modesto was
    forcibly taken by defendants who were armed from his home;Marlon poked his gun at
    Modesto while Robert and Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tiedthe victim; Rita
    and Randy (his wife and son) being warned not to leave the house. His body
    wasdiscovered 4 days later by Randy and his relatives. The accused were found guilty
    for murder.

    The Information read “that on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at Brgy. Bila,
    Sison,Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
    accused,armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the house of Modesto Delim
    and once inside with intent to kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring
    with one another, did thenand there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab, hold,
    hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, broughtout and abduct Modesto Delim, accused Leon
    Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the houseguarded and prevented the wife and son of
    Modesto Delim from helping the latter, thereafter withabuse of superior strength stabbed
    and killed said Modesto Delim, to the damage and prejudiceof his heirs.”

    The trial court rendered judgment finding accused guilty of aggravated murder, and
    wassentenced to death.

    ISSUE: W/N the crime charged in the information is kidnapping or murder? Murder.

    HELD: In determining what crime is charged in an information, the material inculpatory


    factsrecited 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 thecommission of another offense
    primarily intended by the malefactor.

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


    theinformation or criminal complaint that is determinative of what crime the
    accused ischarged with--that of murder or kidnapping.
    Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind which exists where circumstances
    indicate thatan offender actively desired certain criminal consequences or objectively
    desired a specific resultto follow his act or failure to act. Specific intent involves a state
    of the mind. It is the particularpurpose or specific intention in doing the prohibited act.
    Specific intent must be alleged in theInformation and proved by the state in a
    prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent. Kidnapping and murder are specific
    intent crimes.Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial
    evidence. It may be inferredfrom the circumstances of the actions of the accused as
    established by the evidence on record.Specific intent is not synonymous with motive.
    Motive generally is referred to as the reason whichprompts the accused to engage in a
    particular criminal activity. Motive is not an essential elementof a crime and hence the
    prosecution need not prove the same. As a general rule, proof of motivefor the
    commission of the offense charged does not show guilt and absence of proof of
    suchmotive does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime charged such as
    murderInmurder, the specific intent is to kill the victim.

    You might also like