PEOPLE v. ORTEGA True, appellant Garcia merely assisted in concealing the body of the victim.

But
July, 24, 1994 | Panganiban, J. | Art. 4, Par. 1; Praeter Intentionem the autopsy conducted by the NBI medico-legal officer showed that the victim
at that time was still alive, and that he died subsequently of drowning. That
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines drowning was the immediate cause of death was medically demonstrated by the
RESPONDENTS: Benjamin Ortega Jr y Conje, Manuel Garcia y Rivera, John
muddy particles found in the victim's airway, lungs and stomach.
Doe

SUMMARY: Appellants Benjamin Ortega, Jr. (Ortega Jr.) and Manuel Garcia
(Garcia) were charged with the killing of Andre Mar Masangkay (Masangkay),
attended with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.
They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. The trial
court explained its basis for appellants' conviction as follows: "The Court is
convinced that the concerted acts of accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr.,Manuel
Garcia, Jr. and one Romeo Ortega in lifting, carrying and dumping the victim
Andre Mar Masangkay who was still alive and breathing inside the deep well
filled with water, head first and threw big stone/rocks inside the well to cover
the victim is a clear indication of the community of design to finish/kill victim
Andre Mar Masangkay. Wounded and unarmed victim Andre Mar Masangkay
was in no position to flee and/or defend himself against the three malefactors.
Conspiracy and the taking advantage of superior strength were in attendance.
The crime committed by the accused is murder."
The drowning was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony that
appellant Garcia had intended to commit; it exemplifies praeter
intentionem covered by Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code. Under this
paragraph, a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original
intent to kill.
DOCTRINE: A person who commits a felony is liable for the direct, natural
and logical consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is
more serious than that intended. Hence, an accused who originally intended to
conceal and to bury what he thought was the lifeless body of the victim 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 and burial. 

ISSUE: May as accused who originally intended to conceal and bury what he
thought was the lifeless body of the victim be held liable as a principal, where it
is proven that the said victim was actually alive but subsequently died as a
direct result of such concealment and burial?

YES. Article 4, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability
shall be incurred by "any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended." In assisting appellant Ortega, Jr.
carry the body of Masangkay to the well, appellant Garcia was committing a
felony. The offense was that of concealing the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery, i.e. that of being an accessory in the crime of homicide. Although
appellant Garcia may have been unaware that the victim was still alive when he
assisted Ortega in throwing the body into the well, he is still liable for the direct
and natural consequence of his felonious act, even if the resulting offense is
worse than that intended.