FACTS:

The case involves the killing of Andre Mar Masangkay. Appellants Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia were drinking with friends when Masangkay joined them. While Ortega and Garcia were still in the drinking session, they heard Masangkay asking for help. Garcia and another friend witnessed Ortega on top of Masangkay, stabbing him. Garcia called Romeo Ortega to pacify his brother, but did not intervene. Masangkay was found dead in a well with multiple stab wounds. Ortega and Garcia were arrested. Garcia claimed he left the drinking session early to attend to his sick daughter, while his wife supported his alibi. Witnesses for the prosecution testified that Masangkay attacked Ortega, who defended himself, while another witness intervened and stabbed Masangkay. The trial court convicted Ortega and Garcia based on their participation in placing Masangkay alive in the well. The main issue in the appeal is the criminal liabilities of Ortega and Garcia.

ISSUES:

1. Liability of Appellant Ortega - whether the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, finding Ortega guilty of homicide, should be respected.

2. Murder or Homicide? - whether the trial court correctly found the presence only of abuse of superior strength and not treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, and whether this finding affects the appropriate charge for Ortega.

3. Whether appellant Benjamin Ortega, Jr. is liable for murder or for homicide only.

4. Whether appellant Manuel Garcia can be held liable as an accessory or as a principal.

5. Whether the victim's death was a direct consequence of the defendant's felony.

6. Whether the defendant can be convicted of an offense not clearly charged in the complaint or information.

7. Whether the appellant can be convicted of homicide through drowning when the information charges murder by means of stabbing

8. Whether the appellant can be convicted as an accessory after the fact given his relationship to the principal accused

RULING:

1. Liability of Appellant Ortega - The trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies finding Ortega guilty of homicide should be respected. The narration of the prosecution's eyewitness appears to be spontaneous, consistent, and deserving of full credence. On the other hand, the defense's assertion of alibi and denial is deemed incredible.

2. Murder or Homicide? - The trial court incorrectly found the presence only of abuse of superior strength and not treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. It is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but also the various incidents of the event. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Ortega used excessive force that was manifestly out of proportion to the means available to the victim's defense. Therefore, the appropriate charge for Ortega is homicide, not murder.

3. Appellant Benjamin Ortega, Jr. is liable for homicide only. There was no evidence to suggest that Ortega abused his superior strength in the attack. Therefore, the charge of murder is not warranted.

4. Appellant Manuel Garcia can be held liable as a principal for the offense of concealing the body of the crime to prevent its discovery. Even if Garcia was unaware that the victim was still alive when he assisted in throwing the body into the well, he can still be held liable for the resulting offense, which is worse than the offense he intended.

5. The presence of muddy particles in the victim's air passage and stomach, as well as the expert testimony that these particles were ingested while the victim was still alive, proved that the victim died of drowning. Since the drowning was a direct consequence of the defendant's intended felony, the defendant can be held liable for homicide under Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code.

6. The defendant cannot be convicted of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information. It is a violation of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Therefore, the defendant cannot be convicted of the stabbing, which was solely perpetrated by another defendant. The defendant is only responsible for the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of the victim.

7. The appellant cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing. The Court held that the appellant cannot be convicted for a crime that was not alleged in the information. By parity of reasoning with previous cases, such conviction would violate the Bill of Rights.

8. The appellant cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact. The Court ruled that the appellant, being a brother-in-law of the principal accused, is exempt from criminal liability as provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

• The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies made by the trial court is entitled to the highest respect and should not be reversed unless the trial judge plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that might affect the result of the case.

• In determining whether a killing constitutes murder or homicide, it is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but also the various incidents of the event. The presence of treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength requires a deliberate intent on the part of the accused to take advantage of such superiority and to use excessive force that is manifestly out of proportion to the means available to the victim's defense.

• Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, even if the resulting act is different from the one intended.

• A person can be liable for the direct and natural consequence of their felonious act, even if the resulting offense is worse than the one intended.

• To prove drowning as the cause of death, certain medical findings may be relied upon, including the presence of materials or foreign bodies in the victim's hands, increase in volume and edema of the lungs, presence of water and fluid in the stomach contents corresponding to the medium where the body was recovered, presence of froth, foam or foreign bodies in the air passage, and presence of water in the middle ear.

• A person may be convicted of homicide even if they had no original intent to kill, as long as the death was the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony they intended to commit.

• An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. This is to protect their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

• A person cannot be convicted of a crime that was not alleged in the information.

• Exempting provisions in the Revised Penal Code may absolve certain individuals from criminal liability.

• Indemnity requires no proof other than the fact of death and the defendant's responsibility therefor.