For paper:

In the case at bar, the prosecution was burdened to prove the corpus
delicti which consists of two things: first, the criminal act and second,
defendants agency in the commission of the act. Wharton says that corpus
[25]

delicti includes two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective element
of crimes. In homicide (by dolo) and in murder cases, the prosecution is
[26]

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 than the deceased and
was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that defendant
committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the
act which produced the death. To prove the felony of homicide or murder,
[27]

there must be incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the

victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other words, that there was
intent to kill. Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use of weapons by
the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or
immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a
deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti beyond reasonable
doubt either by direct evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence. [28]

In the case at bar, the prosecution adduced the requisite quantum of proof
of corpus delicti. Modesto sustained five (5) gunshot wounds. He also
sustained seven (7) stab wounds, defensive in nature. The use by the
[29]

malefactors of deadly weapons, more specifically handguns and knives, in the

killing of the victim as well as the nature, number and location of the wounds
sustained by said victim are evidence of the intent by the malefactors to kill
the victim with all the consequences flowing therefrom. As the State [30]

Supreme Court of Wisconsin held in Cupps v. State: [31]

This rule, that every person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary and natural
consequences of his own acts, is applied even in capital cases. Because men generally
act deliberately and by the determination of their own will, and not from the impulse
of blind passion, the law presumes that every man always thus acts, until the contrary
appears. Therefore, when one man is found to have killed another, if the
circumstances of the homicide do not of themselves show that it was not intended, but
was accidental, it is presumed that the death of the deceased was designed by the
slayer; and the burden of proof is on him to show that it was otherwise.
 The prosecution did not present direct evidence to prove the authors of the
killing of Modesto. It relied on circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden
of proving the guilt of accused-appellants of murder. Circumstantial evidence
consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience. What was once a rule of account respectability is now entombed
[32]

in Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence which states that
circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive
evidence, is sufficient as anchor for a judgment of conviction if the following
requisites concur:
Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Generally, the intent to kill is presumed when the victim dies
because of the deliberate act of the malefactor. However, the suspect contends that the intent to kill
was not present since he was under the influence of drugs when he committed the wrongful act. This
argument is not only disproved by the applicability of (particular section related to drugs as previously
discussed) but also by the fact that the evidence validates the intent of the suspect.

Based on the findings, the suspect stabbed a 1-year old boy five times, a 7-year old girl nineteen times,
an 11-year old boy for fifteen times, the childrens mother forty-five times, and their grandmother thirty-
two times. The use of a knife of the suspect and the number and location of stab wounds further
substantiate that the victims were deliberately killed by the suspect. In addition, the suspect was even able
to narrate the events that transpired during his commission of the act. Therefore, the intent to kill which
makes him criminally liable to this case was present. It is also clear that the act is not just a result of
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. In addition, the result of the DNA tests
suggests that the crime was done by at least two persons. This implies that there is an aggravating
circumstance which then only proves that the act was done deliberately.

The presumption of this criminal intent can only be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent. Having said
that, the suspect cannot be exempted from the criminal intent because of the argument that he was only
under the influence of drug and alcohol. His acts were clearly voluntary due to the nature of the crime he
has done.

Now to prove if there was an intent or malice in the act done.

Claiming that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol does not relieve the accused for criminal
responsibility, he having acted maliciously and willfully.
Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature, location and
number of wounds sustained by the victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time
or immediately after the killing of the victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the
malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.

According to (modesto brothers case) there is deceit when the act is performed

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there
is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill. chanr