LandmarkCriminal LawRevised Penal Code Book I — General PrinciplesCrimes Against Persons

People v. Ortega

G.R. No. 116736July 24, 1997

Study material, not legal advice. Written and checked by the PhilippineLaws team to the best of our knowledge; not reviewed by a lawyer. A digest is a summary — the full decision is the authority, so read it before you cite it.

Cited for

One who helps conceal what he believes is a corpse, when the victim is in fact alive and then drowns, commits a felony and is liable for the graver result under Article 4(1). Abuse of superior strength requires a deliberate use of force out of proportion to the victim's means of defense

Why it matters

The textbook illustration of praeter intentionem under Article 4(1). Concealing the body of a crime is itself a felony, as an accessory's act, so a person who throws a still-living victim into a well is answerable as a principal for the resulting death. The co-accused was nonetheless acquitted, and the reasons are just as often taught. He could not be convicted of homicide by drowning under an information charging murder by stabbing. And as the principal's brother-in-law, he was exempt from liability as an accessory under Article 20. The case is also cited for the rule that abuse of superior strength must be deliberately sought, not inferred from the outcome of a fight.

Digest

Facts

On the night of October 15, 1992, a drinking session was under way near the house of Benjamin Ortega, Jr. in Dalandanan, Valenzuela. Andre Mar Masangkay was among the group. Ortega and Manuel Garcia arrived drunk at about 11 p.m. and joined them. Around 12:30 a.m. Masangkay went to the back of the house to relieve himself and Ortega followed. The others heard Masangkay shout "Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!" Diosdado Quitlong ran to the back and saw Ortega astride Masangkay, who lay face up in a canal, stabbing him repeatedly. Ortega's brother Romeo, Ortega and Garcia then lifted Masangkay, dropped him into a well and threw large stones in after him. Romeo warned Quitlong to keep quiet, but Quitlong reported the matter, and police recovered the body from the well that morning. The NBI autopsy found 13 stab wounds. It gave the cause of death as multiple stab wounds, with asphyxia by submersion in water as contributory. Muddy particles filled the victim's airway, lungs and stomach, showing he was still alive when he entered the water. Ortega claimed that Masangkay attacked him and that Quitlong did the stabbing. Garcia claimed he was home with his sick daughter. Garcia was Ortega's brother-in-law, being married to Ortega's sister. The RTC convicted both of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, finding conspiracy in the joint act of dumping the still-breathing victim into the well, and imposed reclusion perpetua.

Issues
  1. 1Whether Ortega was guilty of murder or only homicide, and specifically whether abuse of superior strength attended the killing.
  2. 2Whether Garcia, who only helped throw the victim into the well, was criminally liable as a conspirator, a principal, or an accessory.
Ruling

Ortega was guilty of homicide and Garcia was acquitted (Panganiban, J.). The trial court's assessment of credibility stood as to Ortega. Quitlong's account was straightforward and vivid. Ortega's story that he simply went home and slept after an attack in his own backyard, and that Quitlong stabbed the victim ten times while the victim kept choking Ortega, was contrary to human experience. But abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent to take advantage of superiority, meaning purposely using force manifestly out of proportion to the victim's means of defense. Nothing in Quitlong's testimony showed that. No one saw how the attack began, the two were already grappling, and the victim was a six-footer while Ortega stood 5 feet 5 inches. Ortega was therefore liable only for homicide. As to Garcia, the Court rejected the defense argument that the victim was already dead so Garcia could be at most an accessory. Article 4(1) makes a person liable for a felony even if the wrongful act done differs from the one intended. It requires that the intended act be a felony, that the resulting act also be a felony, and that the graver, unintended wrong be primarily caused by the actor's wrongful act. By helping carry the body to the well, Garcia was committing a felony: concealing the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, an accessory's act under Article 19(2). The medical evidence showed the victim was alive and drowned. Drowning was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Garcia's felony, a case of praeter intentionem, so he could have been held liable as a principal in homicide even without an original intent to kill. Two obstacles barred any conviction. First, the information charged him with stabbing the victim, and the evidence showed he took no part in the stabbing. Convicting him of homicide by drowning under an information charging murder by stabbing would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation (citing People v. Pailano). Second, he could not be convicted even as an accessory. Article 20 exempts accessories who are relatives by affinity within the same degrees as brothers and sisters, and Garcia was the principal's brother-in-law. The Article 19(1) exception for accessories who profit from the crime did not apply. Ortega was sentenced to 10 years of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and ordered to pay P50,000 indemnity and P31,790 in receipted actual damages. Garcia was ordered released.

Checked against the full decision by the PhilippineLaws team on September 21, 2026. Not reviewed by a lawyer.