PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, JR.

G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997

TOPIC INVOLVED: SUFFICIENT COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
FACTS: On October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay, Ariel Caranto,
Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet and Diosdado Quitlong were
having a drinking spree with gin and finger foods. At 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega,
Jr. and Manuel Garcia (brother in law of Appellant Ortega) who were already drank
joined them. At midnight:, Masangkay answering a call of nature went to the back
portion of the house and Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard a shout
from Andre Dont, help me! (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!)
Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying down
being stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamins father while Diosdado
called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and Manuel lifted Andre from
the canal and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones to Andres body to
weigh the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to tell anybody what he saw.
He agreed so he was allowed to go home. But, his conscience bothered him so he
told his mother, reported it to the police and accompanied them to the crime scene.

ISSUE: WON Appellants Ortega and Garcia are criminally liable

RULING: Ortega is criminally liable; Garcia is not.

LIABILITY OF ORTEGA: SC found no reason to reverse the trial court's

assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies 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.
LIABILITY OF GARCIA: There are two legal obstacles barring his conviction, even
as an accessory
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.
By parity of reasoning, Appellant Garcia cannot be convicted of homicide through
drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing.
Second. 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. Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from criminal liability as
provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.