People of the Philippines v Beronilla et al

96 PHIL 566, Feb 28, 1955

FACTS: Deceased Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra, at the outbreak
of war and during the Japanese occupation until March 10, 1943. On December 18, 1944,
defendant Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla was appointed military mayor of La Paz by Lt Col
Arnold. As Beronilla was appointed, he received a copy of a memorandum issued by Lt Col Arnold
authorizing all military mayors of Northern Luzon to “appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons
accused of treason, espionage, or the aiding and abbeting of the enemy” together with a list of all
puppet government officials of the province of Abra, including the deceased Borjal, and a
memorandum instructing the investigation of all persons listed therein. Sometime in March 1945,
the deceased returned to La Paz with his family and was placed under custody by defendant
Beronilla. The residents of La Paz filed charges of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of
authority against the deceased and the latter was tried by a 12-man jury appointed by Beronilla.
After 19 days of trial, the jury found the deceased guilty on all accounts. Defendant Mayor then
forwarded the records of the case to the office of Lt Col Arnold, and, after 8 days, the latter replied
to the effect of “this is a matter best handled by your government and whatever disposition you
make of the case is hereby approved.” On the night upon the receipt of the letter thereof, defendant
Beronilla ordered the execution of the deceased. Defendant Jacinto Adriatico acted as the
executioner, and defendant Father Filipino Velasco performed the last rites of the deceased
remains. A radiogram issued by Col Volckmann to Lt Col Arnold calling the attention of the latter
to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence unfortunately was not successfully relayed to
Beronilla. Defendant Beronilla reported the execution to Lt Col Arnold who, in turn, replied with,
in part, “I can only compliment you for your impartial independent way of handling the whole
case.” After two years, defendants herein were indicted and convicted of murder for the execution
of the deceased herein.

ISSUE: Should the defendants be liable for the murder of Borjal?

RULING: No. it appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and the accused-
appellants acted upon orders, of a superior officer that they, as military subordinates, could not
question, and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any fault or
negligence on their part, we cannot say that criminal intent has been established. To constitute a
crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal
intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequence, as, in law, is equivalent to
criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea.

**Note: defendants were also entitled to benefits of Guerilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8
on the ground that the slaying of Borjal took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy
control and occupation. although evidence on record regarding the liberation of La Paz was
contradictory, applying the Presidential directive to the Amnesty Commissions that “any
reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the proclamation shall be resolved in favor
of the accused,” defendants herein are also acquitted under the aforementioned Proclamation