People vs. Ortega - Case Digest

PEOPLE VS. ORTEGA JR.
276 SCRA 166

G.R. NO. 116736, JULY 24 1997
Ponente: Panganiban, J
Laws Applicable: Art. 4 RPC
Facts:
October 15, 1992 at about 5:30 p.m. Andre Mar Masangkay (victim), together with
Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, and Roberto San Andres were having a drinking
spree in Daangbakal, Valenzuela. While they were drinking, Benjamin Ortega, Jr.
(accused) and Manuel Garcia who were already drunk arrived and joined
them. When Masangkay went to the back portion of the house to pee, Ortega, Jr.
followed him. Later on, the drinking spree participants heard the Masangkay
shouted, Dont, Help me! Caranto and Quitlong went to the back and they saw
Ortega, Jr. on top of Masangkay stabbing him. Caranto ran and fetched Benjamin
Ortega Sr., (father). Quitlong fetched Romeo Ortega to pacify the accused.
Romeo Ortega, Benjamin Ortega Jr., and Manuel Garcia lifted Masangkay from the
canal and dropped him inside the well. Then, they dropped stones in the well to the
victims body.
Romeo Ortega warned Quitlong not to tell anyone of what he saw. The latter agreed
and was allowed to go home. When Quitlong reached his house, his conscience
bothered him, told his mother, and went to Col. Origs house to report the matter.
The accused Ortega Jr. and Garcia were apprehended.
The accused Garcias defense was that his wife came and asked him to go home because
their daughter was still sick. To alleviate his daughters 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.
While according to Ortega Jr, when he followed Masangkay in the back, he caught him
peeping through the room his sister Racquel. He ignored him and went to pee. 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 Masangkays 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. 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.
The RTC charged Ortega Jr. and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking advantage
of superior strength committed murder
Issue: Whether Manuel Garcia is criminally liable for the death of Masangkay.
Held: Yes. Garcia criminally liable deserves an acquittal.

The SC applied 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 actors
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. 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.
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.
Verdict: Ortega was guilty of homicide while Garcia was acquitted due to the exempting
provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal code since he is a relative of the principal
accused.

People vs. Ortega - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Ortega - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Ortega - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS. ORTEGA JR.

276 SCRA 166

Laws Applicable: Art. 4 RPC

Held: Yes. Garcia criminally liable deserves an acquittal.

You might also like