PEOPLE v. ORTEGA, JR.
- Large airway was filled muddy particles, indicating he was alive when
July 24, 1997 | Panganiban, J. | Praeter Intentionem
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. y Conje and Manuel Garcia
y Rivera
SUMMARY: Appellant Manuel Garcia originally intended to conceal what he
thought was the lifeless body of the victim, Andre Masangkay. SC held that he
can be held liable as a principal, not simply as an accessory, where it is proven
that the said victim was actually alive but subsequently died as a direct result of
such concealment. Nonetheless, Appellant Garcia (1) cannot be held liable as a
principal because the prosecution failed to allege such death through drowning in
the Information, and (2) neither as an accessory due to his relationship with the
principal killer, Appellant Romeo Ortega, who is his brother-in-law.
DOCTRINE:
Essential requisites for the application of Art 4, par 1 of the RPC:
1. Intended act is felonious
2. Resulting act is likewise a felony
3. The intended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s
wrongful acts
Criminal liability in praeter intentionem:
A person who commits a felony is liable for the direst, natural and logical
consequences of his wrongful act even when where the resulting crime is more
serious than that intended.
FACTS:
1. During a drinking spree of Andre Masankay with some companions,
accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia arrived already drunk.
While Andre Masangkay pooped (“answered the call of nature” LOL),
accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr followed him at the back portion of the house.
Witness Diosdado Quitlong (one of the companions) heard the victim
crying for help. They saw the victim lying down in a canal with Ortega on
top of him and stabbiling him with a long-bladed weapon.
2. Benjamin, together with Romeo Ortega (brother of Benjamin and one of the
companions of the victim in the drinking spree) and Garcia, lifted the body
of the victim and dropped it the well. The three dropped stones on the body
of the victim inside the well.
3. Witness Quitlong reported the matter to the police despite Benjamin’s
warning not to tell anybody what he saw.
4. Findings of the autopsy of the victim’s lifeless body show:
- Cause of death was multiple stab wounds, contributory, asphyxia by
submersion in water
- There was 13 stab wounds and loss of blood
he inhaled these
- Lungs were filled with water or muddy particles – could have been
taken in when submerged with water
- Possible that the stab wounds were inflicted when the victim and
Benjamin were standing or while victim was lying down with the
accused on top.
5. In the Information, it was alleged that:
- The accused conspired together and mutually helped one another
without any justifiable cause
o With treachery and evident premeditation
o With abuse of superior strength
o With deliberate intent to kill…
- Attackerd, assaukted and stabbed repeatedly the victim Andre
Masangkay
6. Appellants Ortega and Garcia pleaded not guilty. One “John Doe” was at
large. Ortega and Garcia were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered
to pay P35k for funeral expenses and P50k as death indemnity.
ISSUE/s: (in relation to topic)
WoN Appellant Garcia incurs criminal liability for the consequential death of the
victim when he only intended to conceal the body upon the belief that the victim was
already dead – SHOULD STILL BE LIABLE, but due to the presence of an
exempting circumstance (his relationship with the killer), he is absolved from the
liability
RULING: Appellant Garcia is acquitted. Appellant Ortega (principal killer) is guilty
only of homicide.
RATIO:
1. In assisting Appellant Ortega to carry the body of the victim to the well,
Appellant Garcia was committing a felony. Although Garcia may have been
unaware that the victim was still alive, he is liable for the direct and natural
consequence of his felonious act, even if the resulting offense is worse than
that intended. Autopsy shows that drowning was the immediate cause of
death. After the stabbing, he was still alive and he subsequently died of
drowning.
2. Evidence of prosecution shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the
stabbing. His responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment of the
crime and resulting drowning of the victim.
3. Exempting circumstance: A person who assists a brother-in-law in
concealing the body of a crime in order to prevent discovery cannot be
convicted as an accessory. He is covered in the exemptions stated in Art 19,
par. 2 of the RPC.