Direct and natural consequence

A person who commits a felony is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequences of the wrongful act even when the resulting crime is more serious than that intended. Hence, an accused who originally intended to conceal and bury what he thought is the lifeless body of a victim can still be held liable as principal, not simply as an accessory, if it is proven that said victim was actually alive, and subsequently died precisely as a result of the act of concealing and burying said victim while still alive. But is there an instance when such person may still not incur criminal liability? This is answered in this case of Marlon.

The incident giving rise to this case started at about 5:30 in the afternoon during a drinking session among neighbors Ben, Greg, Roy, Andy and Bert in a compound near the house of Louie. In the midst of their drinking session, Louie and Marlon joined them. Then Greg went at the back portion of the house to answer the call of nature. Louie followed him after which the group heard Greg shouting “Huwag, huwag, tulungan niyo ako.” So Ben and Andy ran at the back of the house and saw Louie on top of Greg, stabbing him with a long bladed weapon as he was lying down in a canal, face up. This prompted Ben to ask Roy to pacify his brother while Andy ran to fetch Louie’s father. Roy then went to the place of the stabbing and together with Louie and Marlon, lifted Greg from the canal, brought and dropped him in a well. Then they dropped stones on Greg’s body inside the well. Afterwards, Roy warned Ben not to tell anybody to which Ben agreed. Thus he was allowed to go home.

Upon reaching home however, Ben’s conscience bothered him and he told his mother what he saw. Then he went to the residence of a retired police officer who accompanied him to the police station. Responding to the report, some police officers went with them to the crime scene. Only Louie and Marlon were arrested as Roy escaped and remained at large. And after the necessary investigation, Louie, Marlon and Roy, identified as “John Doe” were charged with the crime of murder.

At the trial Ben, the police officer and the NBI medico legal officer testified to prove the above narration of facts.

For his defense Marlon denied that he was at the scene of the crime but was already at home because his daughter was sick and being treated by his mother-in-law through a ritual called “tawas.” His testimony was corroborated by his wife. Louie also testified corroborating Marlon’s story. He said that, 30 minutes after Marlon left, he also left the drinking place to urinate where he saw Greg peeping through the room of his sister Rose. Then Greg approached him and boxed him that caused him to fall. And when he was rising, Greg drew a knife and stabbed him thereby immobilizing him. So he shouted for help and Ben came to wrest the knife from Greg. Then Ben stabbed Greg ten times as the latter ran to the well. So Louie said he went home and fell asleep already. But the following morning, police officers came and arrested him already.

The trial court however found the version of the prosecution witnesses more credible and convicted both Louie and Marlon. The RTC said that in lifting, carrying and dumping Greg into the well when he was still alive and breathing, then throwing rocks inside the well to cover the victim, is a clear sign of conspiracy. So Louie, Marlon and Roy alias John Doe, who is still at large, were indeed guilty of murder with abuse of superior strength.

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court (SC), Marlon claimed that the lower court erred in finding conspiracy among them to kill Greg because he merely assisted Louie and Roy in burying and concealing the body of Greg who was already dead. So he should only be liable as an accessory.

The SC however said that Marlon is wrong. Although he may have been unaware that Greg was still alive when he assisted Louie in throwing the body into the well, he can still be liable for the direct and natural consequences of his felonious act even if the resulting offense is worse than that intended (Article 4 par. 1 Revised Penal Code). While he merely assisted in concealing the body of Greg, the autopsy shows that Greg at that time was still alive and subsequently died of drowning. So the immediate cause of death was drowning for which Marlon may still be convicted of homicide even if he had no intent to kill.

However, in this case there are two legal obstacles barring the conviction of Marlon even as an accessory. First, the prosecution evidence shows that Marlon has nothing to do with the stabbing which was solely perpetrated by Louie. His responsibility only relates to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of Greg. But the Information here charges the offense of murder by means of stabbing. Under the Constitution therefore he cannot be convicted of said offense he is not duly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Secondly, even if he assisted in concealing the crime charged to prevent its discovery, he cannot also be convicted as an accessory, because he is the brother- in-law of Louie. Such relationship exempts him from criminal liability according to Article 20 of the RPC which provides that “the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are related by affinity, among others. So Marlon should be acquitted while Louie is only guilty of homicide, not murder because abuse of superior strength was not proven (People vs. Ortega et. al. G.R. 116736, July 24, 1997).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]