G.R. No. 116736.
July 24, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN
ORTEGA, JR. y CONJE, MANUEL GARCIA y RIVERA and JOHN DOE, accused, BENJAMIN
ORTEGA, JR. y CONJE and MANUEL GARCIA y RIVERA, accused-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
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. Nonetheless, in the present
case, Appellant Garcia can not be held liable as a principal because the
prosecution failed to allege such death through drowning in the Information. Neither may said appellant be held liable as
an accessory due to his relationship with the principal killer, Appellant
Ortega, who is his brother-in-law.
Statement of the Case
This case springs from the joint appeal interposed by
Appellants Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia from the Decision,[1] dated
February 9, 1994 written by Judge Adriano R. Osorio,[2] finding them guilty of
murder.
Appellants were charged by State Prosecutor Bernardo S.
Razon in an Information[3] dated October 19, 1992, as follows:
“That on or about October 17, 1992 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and
mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause, with treachery and
evident premeditation and with abuse of superior strenght (sic) and with
deliberate intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the
different parts of the body one ANDRE MAR MASANGKAY y ABLOLA, thereby
inflicting upon the latter serious physical injuries which directly caused his
death.”
During arraignment, Appellants Ortega and Garcia, assisted by counsel de
oficio,[4] pleaded not
guilty to the charge.[5] Accused “John Doe” was then at large.[6] After trial in due
course, the court a quo promulgated the questioned Decision. The dispositive portion reads:[7]
“WHEREFORE, finding accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. y Conje and
Manuel Garcia y Rivera [g]uilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, the Court hereby sentenced
(sic) them to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the costs of suit.
Accused are hereby ordered to pay the offended party the sum
of P35,000.00 for funeral expenses of deceased Andre Mar Masangkay and death
indemnity of P50,000.00.”
The Notice of Appeal, dated March 9, 1994, was thus filed by
Atty. Evaristo P. Velicaria[8] who took over from the Public Attorney’s Office
as counsel for the accused.
The Facts
Evidence for the Prosecution
The trial court summarized the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses as follows:[9]
“Diosdado Quitlong substantially testified that on October 15, 1992 at about 5:30
in the afternoon, he, the victim Andre Mar Masangkay, Ariel Caranto, Romeo
Ortega, Roberto San Andres were having a drinking spree in the compound
near the house of Benjamin Ortega, Jr. at Daangbakal, Dalandanan, Valenzuela,
Metro Manila. That while they were drinking, accused Benjamin
Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who were [already] drunk arrived and joined them. That victim Andre Mar Masangkay answered the call of nature
and went to the back portion of the house. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. followed him and later they
[referring to the participants in the drinking session] heard the victim Andre
Mar shouted, ‘Don’t, help me!’ (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!) That he and Ariel Caranto ran towards the
back portion of the house and [they] saw accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr., on top
of Andre Mar Masangkay who was lying down in a canal with his face up and stabbing
the latter with a long bladed weapon.
That Ariel Caranto ran and fetched Benjamin Ortega, Sr., the father of
accused Benjamin, Jr. That he [Quitlong]
went to Romeo Ortega in the place where they were having the drinking session
[for the latter] to pacify his brother Benjamin, Jr. That Romeo Ortega went to the place of the
stabbing and together with Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia lifted Andre
Mar Masangkay from the canal and brought Andre Mar to the well and dropped the
latter inside the well. That Romeo
Ortega, Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia then dropped stones measuring 11
to 12 inches high, 2 feet in length and 11 to 12 inches in weight to the body
of Andre Mar Masangkay inside the well.
That Romeo Ortega warned him [Quitlong] not to tell anybody of what he
saw. That he answered in the affirmative
and he was allowed to go home. That his
house is about 200 meters from Romeo Ortega’s house. That upon reaching home, his conscience
bothered him and he told his mother what he witnessed. That he went to the residence of Col.
Leonardo Orig and reported the matter.
That Col. Orig accompanied him to the Valenzuela Police Station and some
police officers went with them to the crime scene. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel
Garcia were apprehended and were brought to the police station.
On cross-examination, he said that he did not talk to the
lawyer before he was presented as witness in this case. That he narrated the incident to his mother
on the night he witnessed the killing on October 15, 1992. That on October 15, 1992 at 5:30 in the afternoon when he
arrived, victim Andre Mar Masangkay, Romeo Ortega, Serafin and one Boyet were
already having [a] drinking spree and he joined them. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel
Garcia were not yet in the place. That
the stabbing happened between 12:00 midnight and 12:30 a.m. That they drank gin with finger foods such as
pork and shell fish. That he met the
victim Andre Mar Masangkay only on that occasion. That accused Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia joined them at
about 11:00 p.m. That there was no altercation between Benjamin Ortega,
Jr. and Manuel Garcia in one hand and Andre Mar Masangkay, during the drinking
session. That at about 12:30 a.m. Andre
Mar Masangkay answered the call of nature and went to the back portion of the
house. That he cannot see Andre Mar
Masangkay from the place they were having the drinking session. That he did not see what happened to Andre
Mar Masangkay. That he only heard
Masangkay asking for help. That accused
Manuel Garcia was still in the drinking session when he heard Masangkay was
asking for help. That Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel
Garcia are his friends and neighbors.
That when he heard Andre Mar Masangkay was asking for help, he and Ariel Caranto ran to the back
portion of the house and saw Benjamin Ortega, Jr. on top of Andre Mar Masangkay
and stabbing the latter. That Andre Mar Masangkay was
lying down with his back in the canal and Benjamin Ortega, Jr. on top stabbing
the former. That he did not see any injuries
on Benjamin Ortega, Jr. That he called
Romeo Ortega to pacify his brother Benjamin, Jr. That he did not do anything to separate
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Masangkay. That he knows that Andre Mar
Masangkay was courting Raquel Ortega.
That Raquel Ortega asked permission from Andre Mar Masangkay when she
left between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m.
That there was no trouble that occurred during the drinking session.
PNP Superintendent Leonardo Orig substantially testified
that Diosdado Quitlong is his neighbor for about 9 years. That on October 16, 1992 at 5:00 in the
morning, he was summoned by Diosdado Quitlong and reported to him the stabbing
incident that occurred at Daangbakal near the subdivision he is living. That he relayed the information to the Valenzuela
Police Station and a police team under police officer Param accompanied them to
the place. That he asked the police
officers to verify if there is a body of person inside the well. That the well was covered with stones and he
asked the police officers to seek the help of theneighbors (sic) to remove the
stones inside the well. That after the
stones were removed, the body of the victim was found inside the well. That the lifeless body was pulled out from
the well. That the body has several stab
wounds. That he came to know the victim
as Andre Mar Masangkay. That two men
were arrested by the police officers.
On cross-examination, he said that he saw the body when
taken out of the well with several
stab wounds. That Diosdado
Quitlong told him that he was drinking with the victim and the assailants at
the time of the incident. That Benjamin
Ortega, Jr. stabbed the victim while the latter was answering the call of
nature.
NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat substantially
testified that he conducted [an] autopsy on the cadaver of Andre Mar Masangkay
on October 16, 1992 at the Valenzuela Memorial Homes located at Macarthur
Highway. That he prepared the autopsy
report and the sketch of human head and body indicating the location of the stab
wounds. That the cause of death is multiple stab wounds,
contributory, [a]sphyxia by submersion in water. That there were 13 stab wounds, 8 of which
were on the frontal part of the body, 2 at the back and there were contused
abrasions around the neck and on the left arm.
There was stab wound at the left side of the neck. That the contused abrasion could be produced
by cord or wire or rope. That there is
(an) incised wound on the left forearm.
That the stab wounds which were backward downward of the body involved
the lungs. That the victim was in front
of the assailant. That the stab wound on the upper left
shoulder was caused when the assailant was in front of the victim. That the assailant was in front of the victim
when the stab wound near the upper left armpit was inflicted as well as the
stab wound on the left chest wall. That
the stab wound on the back left side of the body and the stab wound on the back
right portion of the body may be produced when the assailant was at the back of
the victim. That the assailant
was in front of the victim when the stab wound[s] on the left elbow and left
arm were inflicted. That the large
airway is filled with muddy particles indicating that the victim was alive when
the victim inhaled the muddy particles.
The heart is filled with multiple hemorrhage, loss of blood or decreased
of blood. The lungs is filled with water
or muddy particles. The brain is pale
due to loss of blood. The stomach is one
half filled with muddy particles which could [have been] taken in when
submerged in water.
On cross-examination, he said that he found 13 stab wounds on the body of
the victim. That he cannot tell if the assailant or
the victim were standing. That it
is possible that the stab wounds was (sic) inflicted when both [referring to
participants] were standing or the victim was lying down and the assailant was
on top. That he cannot tell the number
of the assailants.”
Evidence for the Appellants
Appellant Manuel Garcia testified that in the early morning
of October 15, 1992, he and his wife, Maritess Garcia, brought their feverish
daughter, Marjorie, to the Polo Emergency Hospital. He left the hospital at seven o’ clock in the
morning, went home, changed his clothes and went to work.[10] After office
hours, he and Benjamin Ortega, Jr. passed by the canteen at their place of
work. After drinking beer, they left at eight o’ clock in the
evening and headed home. En route, they
chanced on Diosdado Quitlong alias Mac-mac and Andre Mar Masangkay, who invited
them to join their own drinking spree.
Thereupon, Appellant Garcia’s wife came and asked him to go home because
their daughter was still sick. To
alleviate his daughter’s illness, he fetched his mother-in-law who performed a
ritual called “tawas.” After the ritual,
he remained at home and attended to his sick daughter. He then fell asleep but was awakened by
police officers at six o’ clock in the morning of the following day.
Maritess Garcia substantially corroborated the testimony of
her husband. She however added two other
participants in the drinking session aside from Diosdado Quitlong alias Mac-mac
and Andre Mar Masangkay, namely, a Mang Serafin and Boyet Santos.[11]
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. likewise substantially corroborated the
testimony of Appellant Manuel Garcia.[12] According to him, between eleven and
twelve o’ clock in the evening, Masangkay left the drinking session. Thirty (30) minutes after Masangkay left, he also left the drinking
place to urinate.[13] He went behind the house where he saw Masangkay peeping
through the room of his sister Raquel.
He ignored Masangkay and continued urinating.[14] After he was through,
Masangkay approached him and asked where his sister was. He answered that he did not know. Without warning, Masangkay allegedly boxed
him in the mouth, an attack that induced bleeding and caused him to fall on his
back. When he was about to stand up,
Masangkay drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, thereby
immobilizing him. Masangkay then gripped
his neck with his left arm and threatened to kill him. Unable to move, Ortega shouted for help. Quitlong came and, to avoid being stabbed,
grabbed Masangkay’s right hand which was holding the knife. Quitlong was able to wrest the knife from
Masangkay and, with it, he stabbed Masangkay ten (10) times successively, in
the left chest and in the middle of the stomach. When the stabbing started, Ortega moved to
the left side of Masangkay to avoid being hit.[15] Quitlong chased Masangkay
who ran towards the direction of the well.
Thereafter, Ortega went home and treated his injured left armpit and
lips. Then, he slept.
When he
woke up at six o’ clock the following morning, he saw police officers in front
of his house. Taking him with
them, the lawmen proceeded to the well. From the railroad tracks where he was asked to
sit, he saw the police officers lift the body of a dead person from the
well. He came to know the identity of
the dead person only after the body was taken to the police headquarters.[16]
The Trial Court’s Discussion
The trial court explained its basis for appellants’
conviction as follows:[17]
“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 stones/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.
Concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime
and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person
inflicting the fatal wound may determine complicity where it would not
otherwise be evidence (People vs. Yu, 80
SCRA 382 (1977)).
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable. Accused (m)ust reimburse the
heirs of victim Andre Mar Masangkay the amount of P35,000.00 for the funeral
expenses of the deceased.”
The Issues
In their ten-page brief, appellants fault the trial court
with the following: [18]
“I. The trial
court erred in holding that there is conspiracy on the basis of the
prosecution’s evidence that at the time both accused and one Romeo Ortega
lifted the body of Andrew Masangkay from where he succumbed due to stab wounds
and brought and drop said body of Andrew Masangkay to the well to commit
murder;
II. The trial
court erred in finding and holding that Andrew Masangkay was still alive at the
time his body was dropped in the well;
III. The trial
court erred in convicting Manuel Garcia and in not acquitting the latter of the
crime charged; and
IV. The trial
court erred in not finding that if at all Benjamin Ortega Jr. is guilty only of
homicide alone.”
On the basis of the records and the arguments raised by the
appellants and the People, we believe
that the question to be resolved could be simplified thus: What are the
criminal liabilities, if any, of Appellants Ortega and Garcia?
The Court’s Ruling
We find the appeal partly meritorious. Appellant Ortega is guilty only of homicide. Appellant Garcia deserves
acquittal.
First Issue:
Liability of Appellant Ortega
The witnesses for the prosecution and defense presented
conflicting narrations. The prosecution
witnesses described the commission of the crime and positively identified
appellants as the perpetrators. The
witnesses for the defense, on the other hand, attempted to prove denial and
alibi. As to which of the two contending
versions speaks the truth primarily rests on a critical evaluation of the
credibility of the witnesses and their stories.
In this regard, the trial court held:[19]
“The Court has listened intently to the narration of the
accused and their witnesses and the prosecution witnesses and has keenly
observed their behavior and demeanor on the witness stand and is convinced that
the story of the prosecution is the more believable version. Prosecution eyewitness Diosdado Quitlong
appeared and sounded credible and his credibility is reinforced by the fact
that he has no reason to testify falsely against the accused. It was Diosdado Quitlong who reported the
stabbing incident to the police authorities.
If Quitlong stabbed and killed the victim Masangkay, he will keep away
from the police authorities and will go in hiding. x x x”
Because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the
witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand as they rendered their
testimonies, its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the
highest respect. Therefore, unless the
trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if
considered, might affect the result of the case, his assessment of credibility
must be respected.[20]
In the instant case, we have meticulously scoured the
records and found no reason to reverse the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies[21] insofar as Appellant
Ortega is concerned. The narration of
Eyewitness Diosdado Quitlong appears to be spontaneous and consistent. It is straightforward, detailed, vivid and
logical. Thus, it clearly deserves full
credence.
On the other hand, in asserting alibi and denial, the
defense bordered on the unbelievable.
Appellant Ortega claimed that after he was able to free himself from
Masangkay’s grip, he went home, treated his injuries and slept.[22] This is not
the ordinary reaction of a person assaulted.
If Ortega’s version
of the assault was true, he should have immediately reported the matter to the
police authorities, if only out of gratitude to Quitlong who came to his
rescue. Likewise, it is difficult to believe that a man would
just sleep after someone was stabbed in his own backyard. Further, we deem it incredible that Diosdado
Quitlong would stab Masangkay ten (10) times successively, completely ignoring
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. who was grappling with Masangkay. Also inconsistent with human experience is
his narration that Masangkay persisted in choking him instead of defending
himself from the alleged successive stabbing of Quitlong.[23] The natural tendency of a person under attack is
to defend himself and not to persist in choking a defenseless third person.
Murder or Homicide?
Although treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of
superior strength were alleged in the information, the trial court found the
presence only of abuse of superior strength.
We disagree with the trial court’s finding. Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of
the accused to take advantage of such superiority. It must be shown that the accused purposely
used excessive force that was manifestly out of proportion to the means
available to the victim’s defense.[24] In this light, it is necessary to
evaluate not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but
also the various incidents of the event.[25]
In his testimony, Witness Dominador Quitlong mentioned
nothing about Appellant Ortega’s availment of force excessively out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the victim to defend himself. Quitlong described the assault made by
Appellant Ortega as follows:[26]
“ATTY. ALTUNA:
Q Will you please
tell me the place and date wherein you have a drinking spree with Andrew
Masangkay and where you witnessed a stabbing incident?
A It was on
October 15, 1992, sir, at about 5:30 in the afternoon we were drinking in the
house of Mr. Benjamin Ortega, Sr., because the house of Benjamin Ortega Sr. and
the house of his son Benjamin Ortega, Jr. are near each other.
xxx
xxx xxx
Q Mr. Witness, who
were the companions of said persons, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia, you
(sic) in drinking in said place?
A The other
companions in the drinking session were Ariel Caranto y Ducay, Roberto San
Andres and Romeo Ortega.
Q What about this
victim, Andrew Masangkay, where was he at that time?
A Also the victim,
Andrew Masangkay, he was also there.
Q You said that
the two accused, Manuel Garcia and Benjamin Ortega, Jr. arrived drunk and
joined the group?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened
next?
A While we were
there together and we were drinking ... (interrupted by Atty. Altuna)
Q Who is that
‘we’?
A Referring to
Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia, Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San
Andres, myself and Andrew Masangkay.
Andrew Masangkay answer to a call
of nature and went to the back portion of the house, and Benjamin Ortega, Jr.
followed him where he was.
Q What happened
next?
A And afterwards
we heard a shout and the shout said ‘Huwag, tulungan n’yo ako’.
Q From whom did
you hear this utterance?
A The shout came
from Andrew Masangkay.
Q After Benjamin
Ortega, Jr. followed Andrew Masangkay to answer a call of nature and after you
heard ‘huwag, tulungan n’yo ako’ coming from the mouth of the late Andrew
Masangkay, what happened next?
A Ariel Caranto
and I ran towards the back portion of the house.
Q And what did you
see?
A And I saw that
Benjamin Ortega, Jr. was on top of Andrew Masangkay and he was stabbing Andrew
Masangkay.
Q Will you please
demonstrate to the Honorable Court how the stabbing was done telling us the
particular position of the late Andrew Masangkay and how Benjamin Ortega, Jr
proceeded with the stabbing against the late victim, Andrew Masangkay?
INTERPRETER:
(At this juncture, the witness demonstrating.)
Andrew Masangkay was lying down on a canal with his face up,
then Benjamin Ortega, Jr. was ‘nakakabayo’ and with his right hand with closed
fist holding the weapon, he was thrusting this weapon on the body of the
victim, he was making downward and upward motion thrust.
ATTY. ALTUNA: (To the witness)
Q How many times
did Benjamin Ortega, Jr. stabbed Andrew Masangkay?
A I cannot count
the number of times.”
It should be noted that Victim Masangkay was a six-footer, whereas Appellant
Ortega, Jr. was only five feet and five inches tall.[27] There was no
testimony as to how the attack was initiated.
The accused and the victim were already grappling when Quitlong arrived. Nothing in the foregoing testimony and
circumstances can be interpreted as abuse of superior strength. Hence, Ortega is liable only for homicide,
not murder.
Second Issue:
Liability of Appellant Manuel Garcia
Appellants argue that the finding of conspiracy by the trial
court “is based on mere assumption and conjecture x x x.”[28] Allegedly, the
medico-legal finding that the large airway was “filled with muddy particles
indicating that the victim was alive when the victim inhaled the muddy
particles” did not necessarily mean that such muddy particles entered the body
of the victim while he was still alive.
The Sinumpaang Salaysay of Quitlong stated, “Nilubayan lang nang saksak
nang mapatay na si Andrew ni Benjamin Ortega, Jr.” Thus, the prosecution evidence shows
Masangkay was already “dead” when he was lifted and dumped into the well. Hence, Garcia could be held liable only as an
accessory.[29]
We do not agree with the above contention. Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal
liability shall be incurred by “any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” The essential requisites for the application
of this provision are that (a) the intended act is felonious; (b) the resulting
act is likewise a felony; and (c) the unintended albeit graver wrong was
primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful acts.
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.[30]
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.
True, Appellant Garcia merely assisted in concealing the
body of the victim. But 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.[31] That drowning
was the immediate cause of death was medically demonstrated by the muddy
particles found in the victim’s airway, lungs and stomach.[32] This is evident
from the expert testimony given by the medico-legal officer, quoted below:[33]
ATTY. ALTUNA:
“Q Will you please
explain this in simple language the last portion of Exhibit N, beginning with
‘tracheo-bronchial tree’, that is sentence immediately after paragraph 10, 2.5
cms. Will you please explain this?
A The
trancheo-bronchial tree is filled with muddy particles.
Q I ask you a
question on this. Could the victim have
possibly get this particular material?
A No, sir.
Q What do you mean
by no?
A A person should
be alive so that the muddy particles could be inhaled.
Q So, in short,
you are telling or saying to us that if there is no inhaling or the taking or
receiving of muddy particles at that time, the person is still alive?
A Yes, sir.
Q Second point?
A The heart is
pale with some multiple petechial hemorrhages at the anterior surface.
Q And this may
[be] due to stab wounds or asphyxia?
A These are the effects or due to asphyxia or
decreased amount of blood going to the heart.
Q This asphyxia
are you referring to is the drowning?
A Yes, sir.
Q Next point is
the lungs?
A The lungs is
also filled with multiple petechial hemorrhages.
Q What could have
caused this injury of the lungs?
A This is due to
asphyxia or the loss of blood.
Q Are you saying
that the lungs have been filled with water or muddy particles?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, precisely,
you are now testifying that due to stab wounds or asphyxia, the lungs have been
damaged per your Report?
A Yes, sir.
Q Continuing this
brain and other visceral organs, pale.
What is this?
A The paleness of
the brain and other visceral organs is due to loss of blood.
Q And, of course,
loss of blood could be attributed to the stab wound which is number 13?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the last
one, under the particular point ‘hemothorax’?
A It indicates at
the right side. There are around 1,400
cc of blood that accumulate at the thoraxic cavity and this was admixed with
granular materials?
Q And what cause
the admixing with granular materials on said particular portion of the body?
A Could be muddy
particles.
Q Due to the
taking of maddy (sic) materials as affected by asphyxia? Am I correct?
A It’s due to stab
wounds those muddy particles which set-in thru the stab wounds.
Q So, because of
the opening of the stab wounds, the muddy particles now came in, in that
particular portion of the body and caused admixing of granular materials?
A Yes, sir.
Q Continuing with
your report, particularly, the last two portions, will you please explain the
same?
A The
hemoperitoneum there are 900 cc of blood that accumulated inside the abdomen.
Q And what could
have cause the same?
A [T]he stab wound
of the abdomen.
Q The last one,
stomach 1/2 filled with muddy particles.
Please explain the same?
A The victim could
have taken these when he was submerged in water.
Q What is the take
in?
A Muddy particles.
Q And he was still
alive at that time?
A Yes, sir.” (Underscoring supplied)
A Filipino authority on forensic medicine opines that any of
the following medical findings may show that drowning is the cause of
death:[34]
“1. The presence
of materials or foreign bodies in the hands of the victim. The clenching of the hands is a manifestation
of cadaveric spasm in the effort of the victim to save himself from drowning.
2. Increase in
volume (emphysema aquosum) and edema of the lungs (edema aquosum).
3. Presence of
water and fluid in the stomach contents corresponding to the medium where the
body was recovered.
4. Presence of
froth, foam or foreign bodies in the air passage found in the medium where the
victim was found.
5. Presence of
water in the middle ear.”
The third and fourth findings were present in the case of
Victim Masangkay. It was proven that his airpassage, or specifically his
tracheo-bronchial tree, was filled with muddy particles which were residues at
the bottom of the well. Even his stomach
was half-filled with such muddy particles.
The unrebutted testimony of the medico-legal officer that all these
muddy particles were ingested when the victim was still alive proved that the
victim died of drowning inside the well.
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.[35]
In spite of the evidence showing that Appellant Garcia could
be held liable as principal in the crime of homicide, there are, however, two
legal obstacles barring his conviction, even as an accessory – as prayed for by
appellants’ counsel himself.
First. The
Information accused Appellant Garcia (and Appellant Ortega) of “attack[ing],
assault[ing], and stab[bing] repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the different
parts of the body one ANDRE MAR MASANGKAY y ABLOLA” The prosecution’s evidence itself shows that
Garcia had nothing to do with the stabbing which was solely perpetrated by
Appellant Ortega. His responsibility
relates only to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting
drowning of Victim Masangkay. The
hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be convicted of
an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To convict him of an offense other than that
charged in the complaint or information would be a violation of this
constitutional right.[36] Section 14, par. 2, of the 1987 Constitution
explicitly guarantees the following:
“(2) In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustifiable.”
(Underscoring supplied)
In People vs. Pailano,[37] this Court ruled that there can
be no conviction for rape on a woman “deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious” where the information charged the accused of sexual assault “by
using force or intimidation,” thus:
“The criminal complaint in this case alleged the commission
of the crime through the first method although the prosecution sought to
establish at the trial that the complainant was a mental retardate. Its purpose in doing so is not clear. But whatever it was, it has not succeeded.
If the prosecution was seeking to convict the
accused-appellant on the ground that he violated Anita while she was deprived
of reason or unconscious, such conviction could not have been possible under
the criminal complaint as worded. This
described the offense as having been committed by ‘Antonio Pailano, being then
provided with a scythe, by means of violence and intimidation, (who) did, then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the
complainant, Anita Ibañez, 15 years of age, against her will.’ No mention was made of the second
circumstance.
Conviction of the accused-appellant on the finding that he
had raped Anita while she was unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason --
and not through force and intimidation, which was the method alleged -- would
have violated his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.[Article IV, Sec. 19, Constitution of 1973; now Article
III, Sec. 14(2)] This right is
safeguarded by the Constitution to every accused so he can prepare an adequate
defense against the charge against him.
Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his
defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. This right was, of course, available to the
herein accused-appellant.
In People vs. Ramirez, [fn: 69 SCRA 144] we held that a
person charged with rape could not be found guilty of qualified seduction,
which had not been alleged in the criminal complaint against him. In the case of People vs. Montes, [fn: 122 SCRA
409] the Court did not permit the conviction for homicide of a person held
responsible for the suicide of the woman he was supposed to have raped, as the
crime he was accused of -- and acquitted -- was not homicide but rape. More to the point is Tubb v. People of the
Philippines, [fn: 101 Phil. 114] where the accused was charged with the
misappropriation of funds held by him in trust with the obligation to return
the same under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but was
convicted of swindling by means of false pretenses, under paragraph 2(b) of the
said Article, which was not alleged in the information. The Court said such conviction would violate
the Bill of Rights.”
By parity of reasoning, Appellant Garcia cannot be convicted
of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of
stabbing.
Second. Although the
prosecution was able to prove that Appellant Garcia assisted in “concealing x x
x the body of the crime, x x x in order to prevent its discovery,” he can
neither be convicted as an accessory after the fact defined under Article 19,
par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The
records show that Appellant Garcia
is a brother-in-law of Appellant Ortega,[38] the latter’s sister, Maritess,
being his wife.[39] Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from
criminal liability as provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code:
“ART.
20. Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability. -- The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.”
On the other hand, “the next preceding article” provides:
“ART. 19.
Accessories. – Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals
or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his
public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt
to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.”
Appellant Garcia,
being a covered relative by affinity of the principal accused, Benjamin Ortega,
Jr., is legally entitled to the aforequoted exempting provision of the Revised
Penal Code. This Court is thus mandated
by law to acquit him.
Penalty and Damages
The award of actual damages should be reduced to P31,790.00
from P35,000.00. The former amount was
proven both by documentary evidence and by the testimony of Melba Lozano, a
sister of the victim.[40] Of the expenses alleged to have been incurred, the
Court can give credence only to those that are supported by receipts and appear
to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death of the victim.[41]
However, in line with current jurisprudence,[42] Appellant Ortega shall also
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P50,000.00. Indemnity requires no proof other than the
fact of death and appellant’s responsibility therefor.[43]
The
penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, which is imposable in its medium period, absent any aggravating or
mitigating circumstance, as in the case of Appellant Ortega. Because he is entitled to the benefits of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be one degree lower, that
is, prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the joint appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. Appellant Benjamin Ortega, Jr. is found
GUILTY of homicide and sentenced to ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal medium, as maximum. Appellant
Ortega, Jr. is also ORDERED to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as
indemnity and P31,790.00 as actual damages.
Appellant Manuel Garcia is ACQUITTED. His immediate release from confinement is
ORDERED unless he is detained for some other valid cause.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco,
JJ., concur.
