People vs. Ortega, Jr.

An accused cannot be convicted of a crime for acts not alleged in the Information, and a murder conviction must be reduced to homicide when the qualifying circumstances are not proven.

The case originated from an Information filed on October 19, 1992, charging Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia, and a "John Doe" (later identified as Romeo Ortega, who remained at large) with conspiring to attack, assault, and stab repeatedly Andre Mar Masangkay, thereby killing him. The Information alleged treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and deliberate intent to kill. Both appellants pleaded not guilty at their arraignment.

During the trial, prosecution witness Diosdado Quitlong testified that during a drinking session, Masangkay went to the back of the house and cried for help. Quitlong and another witness saw Ortega on top of Masangkay, stabbing him. Quitlong further testified that he, Romeo Ortega, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., and Manuel Garcia lifted Masangkay’s body and dumped it head-first into a well, subsequently dropping big stones on it. Quitlong later reported the incident to the police. The police, led by PNP Superintendent Leonardo Orig, recovered the body from the well, leading to the arrest of Ortega and Garcia.

The NBI medico-legal officer, Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat, performed an autopsy and reported 13 stab wounds and "asphyxia by submersion in water." The presence of muddy particles in the tracheo-bronchial tree and stomach indicated that the victim inhaled muddy water while still alive. The medico-legal conclusion stated that death resulted from multiple stab wounds with contributory asphyxia by submersion.

For their defense, both appellants presented alibis and denials. Garcia claimed he spent part of the day attending to a sick child and was home asleep when police arrested him the next morning. Ortega claimed he was assaulted by Masangkay, sustained stab injuries, and alleged that Quitlong had stabbed the deceased repeatedly. The Regional Trial Court credited the prosecution's eyewitnesses and found a conspiracy, leading to the conviction of both accused for murder.

• Proper Offense: Whether the conviction of Benjamin Ortega, Jr. for murder was correct, or should it be reduced to homicide.
• Variance between Charge and Proof: Whether Manuel Garcia can be convicted of homicide (as principal or accessory) for the victim's drowning despite the Information charging murder by stabbing.

• Proper Offense: No. The conviction for murder was incorrect and was reduced to homicide, as the qualifying circumstances were not established.
• Variance between Charge and Proof: No. Garcia was acquitted because the Information charged murder by stabbing, and he could not be convicted of homicide by drowning due to the variance between the charge and the evidence.