GR 175942; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175942; September 13, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARLON DELIM, LEON DELIM, MANUEL DELIM alias “BONG,” NORBERTO DELIM and RONALD DELIM alias “BONG,” Accused, NORBERTO DELIM, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Norberto Delim was charged with Murder for the killing of Modesto Delim on January 23, 1999, in Sison, Pangasinan. The Information alleged that he, along with four co-accused, armed with short firearms, barged into the victim’s house, abducted him, and later killed him. While three co-accused were previously convicted of Homicide, and one remained at-large, Norberto was subsequently arrested and tried separately. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim’s wife, Rita, and son, Randy, who positively identified Norberto as one of the armed men who forcibly dragged Modesto from their house. The defense, however, presented an alibi, claiming Norberto was in Isabela on the date of the incident and had no knowledge of the crime.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Norberto Delim for the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision finding Norberto Delim guilty of Homicide, not Murder. The Court upheld the positive identification by the eyewitnesses, Rita and Randy Manalo, who consistently and credibly testified that they saw appellant participate in the abduction of the victim from their own home. Their familiarity with appellant, as a former neighbor, bolstered the reliability of their identification. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unpersuasive, as it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the crime scene. The positive identification prevails over a denial and alibi, which are inherently feeble defenses.
However, the Court agreed with the appellate court that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently established. The prosecution failed to prove how the attack was commenced, as the witnesses did not see the actual killing. The circumstances surrounding the death, which occurred after the abduction, remained unclear. Thus, without proof of the manner of execution ensuring the victim’s defenselessness, the crime is properly Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor maximum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium, with corresponding civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.