Case Title : THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs.

MANUEL BERONILLA, FILIPINO VELASCO, POLICARPO PACULDO, and

JACINTO ADRIATICO, defendants and appellants.

Case Nature : APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Abra. Bocar,
J.

Syllabi Class : CRIMINAL LAW|GUERRILLA AMNESTY PROCLAMATION

Syllabi:

CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMES COMMITTED UPON ORDERS OF SUPERIOR

OFFICERS; LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT.-

Where the accused

CRIMINAL LAW; GUERRILLA AMNESTY PROCLAMATION; DOUBTS AS TO

WHETHER CASE FALLS WITHIN PROCLAMATION SHALL BE RESOLVED
IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED.-

Where the evidence on record regarding the date of liberation of the area is
contradictory, the accused should not be denied their claim to the benefits of the
Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (42 Off. Gaz., 2072) on the ground that the
slaying of the deceased took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy
control and occupation, because "any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls
within the amnesty proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused." (People
vs. Gajo, 46 Off. Gaz., (No. 12) p. 6093.)

CRIMINAL LAW; GUERRILLA AMNESTY PROCLAMATION; ID.-

The concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration with the enemy as motives for
the liquidation of persons accused of and convicted of treason, espionage, or aiding
and abetting of the enemy does not operate to exclude the case from the benefits of the
Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation.

Docket Number: No. L-4445

Counsel: Agripino A. Brillantes, Valera, Eufemio, Bernardez, Prospero C. Sanidad,

Claro M. Recto, Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag, Solicitors Jaime R. de los Angeles,
Martiniano P. Vivo

Ponente: REYES
Dispositive Portion:

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellants are
acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Citation Ref:

47 Phil. 48 | 84 Phil. 107 | 89 Phil. 414 |

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4445. February 28, 1955.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL

BERONILLA, FILIPINO VELASCO, POLICARPO PACULDO, and JACINTO
ADRIATICO, Defendants-Appellants.

Agripino A. Brillantes, Valera, Eufemio and Bernardez for Appellants.

Prospero C. Sanidad and Claro M. Recto for defendant, Filipino Velasco.

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitors Jaime R. de los Angeles and
Martiniano P. Vivo for Appellee.

SYLLABUS

CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMES COMMITTED UPON ORDERS OF SUPERIOR

OFFICERS; LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT. Where the accused acted upon
orders of superior officers 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, the act is not accompanied by criminal intent. The maxim is,
actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea a crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing the act complained of be innocent. (U. S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil., 507;
People v. Pacana, 47 Phil., 48; Sent. of the Tribunal Supremo of Spain, 3 July 1886; 7
January 1901; 24 March 1900; 21 Feb. 1921; 25 March 1929).
ID.; GUERILLA AMNESTY PROCLAMATION; DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER
CASE FALLS WITHIN PROCLAMATION SHALL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR
OF ACCUSED. Where the evidence on record regarding the date of liberation of
the area is contradictory, the accused should not be denied their claim to the benefits
of the Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (42 Off. Gaz., 2072) on the ground that
the slaying of the deceased took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy
control and occupation, because "any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls
within the amnesty proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused." (People v.
Gajo, 46 Off. Gaz., (No. 12) p. 6093.)

ID.; ID.; ID. The concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration with the enemy
as motives for the liquidation of persons accused of and convicted of treason,
espionage, or aiding and abetting of the enemy does not operate to exclude the case
from the benefits of the Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation.

DECISION

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

This is an appeal by accused Manuel Beronilla, Policarpo Paculdo, Filipino Velasco,

and Jacinto Adriatico from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Abra
(Criminal Case No. 70) convicting them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal
in the evening of April 18, 1945, in the town of La Paz, Province of Abra.

Arsenio Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra, at the outbreak of war, and
continued to serve as Mayor during the Japanese occupation, until March 10, 1943,
when he moved to Bangued because of an attempt upon his life by unknown persons.
On December 18, 1944, appellant Manuel Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of
La Paz by Lt. Col. R. H. Arnold, regimental commander of the 15th Infantry,
Philippine Army, operating as a guerrilla unit in the province of Abra. Simultaneously
with his appointment as Military Mayor, Beronilla received copy of a memorandum
issued By Lt. Col. Arnold to all Military Mayors in Northern Luzon, authorizing them
"to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason, espionage, or the
aiding and abetting (of) the enemy" (Exhibit 9). He also received from the
Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list of all puppet government officials of the
province of Abra (which included Arsenio Borjal, puppet mayor of La Paz), with a
memorandum instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather
against them complaints from people of the municipality for collaboration with the
enemy (Exhibit 12-a).

Sometime in March, 1945, while the operations for the liberation of the province of
Abra were in progress, Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with his family in order to
escape the bombing of Bangued. Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal
under custody and asked the residents of La Paz to file complaints against him. In no
time, charges of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority were filed
against Borjal; a 12-man jury was appointed by Beronilla, composed of Jesus
Labuguen as chairman, and Benjamin Adriatico, Andres Afos, Juanito Casal, Santiago
Casal, Benjamin Abella, Servillano Afos, Mariano Ajel, Felimon Labuguen, Felix
Murphy, Pedro Turqueza, and Delfin Labuguen as members; while Felix Alverne and
Juan Balmaceda were named prosecutors, Policarpo Paculdo as clerk of the jury, and
Lino Inovermo as counsel for the accused. Later, Atty. Jovito Barreras voluntarily
appeared and served as counsel for Borjal. Sgt. Esteban Cabanos observed the
proceedings for several days upon instructions of Headquarters, 15th Infantry. The
trial lasted 19 days up to April 10, 1945; the jury found Borjal guilty on all counts and
imposed upon him the death penalty (Exhibits M to M-2). Pursuant to instructions
from his superiors. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to the
Headquarters of the 15th Infantry for review. Said records were returned by Lt. Col.
Arnold to Beronilla on April 18, 1945 with the following
instructions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"HEADQUARTERS 3RD MILITARY DISTRICT

15TH INFANTRY, USAFIP

In the Field

16 April 1945

Msg. No. 337

Subject: Arsenio Borjal, Charges Against

To: Military Mayor of La Paz, Abra.

Returned herewith are the papers on the case of Arsenio Borjal.

This is a matter best handled by your government and whatever disposition you make
of the case is hereby approved.

(Sgd. R. H. ARNOLD

Lieut. -Colonel, 15th Inf., PA

Commanding

Received April 18, 1945, 10:35 a.m

(Sgd.) MANUEL BERONILLA

Military Mayor, La Paz, Abra.

(Exhibits 8, 8-a)

and on the night of the same day, April 18, 1945, Beronilla ordered the execution of
Borjal. Jacinto Adriatico acted as executioner and Antonio Palope as grave digger.
Father Luding of the Roman Catholic Church was asked to administer the last
confession to the prisoner, while Father Filipino Velasco of the Aglipayan Church
performed the last rites over Borjals remains. Immediately after the execution,
Beronilla reported the matter to Col. Arnold who, in reply to Beronillas report, sent
him the following message:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"HEADQUARTERS 3RD MILITARY DISTRICT

15 INFANTRY, USAFIP

NL In the Field

22 April 1945

Msg. No. 398

Subject: Report and information Re Borjal case

To: Military Mayor Beronilla.

Received your letter dated 18 April 1945, subject, above.

My request that you withhold action in this case was only dictated because of a query
from Higher Headquarters regarding same. Actually, I believe there was no doubt as
to the treasonable acts of the accused Arsenio Borjal and I know that your trial was
absolutely impartial and fair. Consequently, I can only compliment you for your
impartial but independent way of handling the whole case.

Best regards,

(Sgd.) R. H. ARNOLD

Lieut. -Colonel, 15th Infantry, PA

Commanding

Received April 26, 1945 7:00 a.m.

(Sgd.) MANUEL BERONILLA

Military Mayor, La Paz, Abra"

(Exhibit 21, 21-a)

Two years thereafter, Manuel Beronilla as military mayor, Policarpo Paculdo as Clerk
of the jury, Felix Alverne and Juan Balmaceda as prosecutors, Jesus Labuguen, Delfin
Labuguen, Filemon Labuguen, Servillano Afos, Andres Afos, Benjamin Adriatico,
Juanito Casel, Santiago Casel, Mariano Ajel, Felix Murphy, Benjamin Abella, and
Pedro Turqueza as members of the jury, Jacinto Adriatico as executioner, Severo Afos
as grave digger, and Father Filipino Velasco as an alleged conspirator, were indicted
in the Court of First Instance of Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and
confederating in the execution of Arsenio Borjal. Soon thereafter, the late President
Manuel A. Roxas issued Executive Proclamation No. 8, granting amnesty to all
persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code in furtherance of
the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
Defendant Jesus Labuguen, then a master sergeant in the Philippine Army, applied for
and was granted amnesty by the Amnesty Commission, Armed Forces of the
Philippines (Records, pp. 618-20). The rest of the defendants filed their application for
amnesty with the Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, who denied their
application on the ground that the crime had been inspired by purely personal motives,
and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Abra for trial on the merits.

Upon motion of defense counsel, the case against defendant Jesus Labuguen, who had
been granted amnesty by the Amnesty Commission of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, was ordered provisionally dismissed: defendant Juan Balmaceda was
discharged from the information so that he might be utilized as state witness, altho
actually he was not called to testify; while the case against defendants Antonio Palope
(the grave digger) and Demetrio Afos (a boloman) was dismissed for lack of sufficient
evidence.

Trial proceeded against the rest of the defendants; and on July 10, 1950, the Court
below rendered judgment, acquitting the members of the jury and the grave digger
Antonio Palope on the ground that they did not participate in the killing of Arsenio
Borjal; acquitting defendants Jesus Labuguen, Felix Alverne, Severo Afos, and Lauro
Parado upon insufficiency of evidence to establish their participation in the crime; but
convicting defendants Manuel Beronilla, Policarpo Paculdo, Filipino Velasco, and
Jacinto Adriatico as conspirator and co-principals of the crime of murder, and
sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Arsenio Borjal
jointly and severally in the amount of P4,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and each to pay one fourth of the costs. In convicting said defendants, the
Court a quo found that while the crime committed by them fell within the provisions
of the Amnesty Proclamation, they were not entitled to the benefits thereof because
the crime was committed after the expiration of the time limit fixed by the amnesty
proclamation;: i.e., that the deceased Arsenio Borjal was executed after the liberation
of La Paz, Abra.

In view of the sentence meted by the Court below, the accused Beronilla, Paculdo,
Velasco and Adriatico appealed to this Court.

The records are ample to sustain the claim of the defense that the arrest, prosecution
and trial of the late Arsenio Borjal were done pursuant to express orders of the 15th
Infantry Headquarters. (Exhibits 9 and 12-a), instructing all military mayors under its
jurisdiction to gather evidence against puppet officials and to appoint juries of at least
12 bolomen to try the accused and find them guilty by two thirds vote. It is to be noted
that Arsenio Borjal was specifically named in the list of civilian officials to be
prosecuted (Exhibit 12-b).

In truth, the prosecution does not seriously dispute that the trial and sentencing of
Borjal was done in accordance with instructions of superior military authorities, altho
it points to irregularities that were due more to ignorance of legal processes than
personal animosity against Borjal. The state, however, predicates its case principally
on the existence of the radiogram Exhibit H from Colonel Volckmann, overall area
commander, to Lt. Col. Arnold, specifically calling attention to the illegality of
Borjals conviction and sentence, and which the prosecution claims was known to the
accused Beronilla. Said message is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Message:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

VOLCKMAN TO ARNOLD CLN UNDERSTAND THAT MUNICIPALITIES OF

ABRA HAVE ORGANIZED JURY SYSTEM PD BELIEVE THAT THIS BODY IS
ILLEGAL AND CANNOT TRY PERSONS FOR ESPIONAGE OR
COLLABORATION NOR METE OUT PUNISHMENTS THEREOF PD SPECIFIC
INSTANCE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION FOR PROPER AND
IMMEDIATE ACTION ON ONE ARSENIO BORJAL OF LA PAZ WHO HAS
BEEN TRIED CMA CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO BE HANGED PD
REPORT ACTION TAKEN BY YOU ON THIS MATTER PD MSG BEGINS CLN"

(EXH. H)

The crucial question thus becomes whether or not this message, originally sent to
Arnolds quarters in San Esteban, Ilocos Sur, was relayed by the latter to appellant
Beronilla in La Paz, Abra, on the morning of April 18, 1945, together with the
package of records of Borjals trial that was admittedly returned to and received by
Beronilla on that date, after review thereof by Arnold (Exhibits 8-8-a). Obviously, if
the Volckmann message was known to Beronilla, his ordering the execution of Borjal
on the night of April 18, 1945 can not be justified.

We have carefully examined the evidence on this important issue, and find no
satisfactory proof that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram Exhibit H or any
copy thereof. The accused roundly denied it. The messenger, or "runner", Pedro
Molina could not state what papers were enclosed in the package he delivered to
Beronilla on the morning in question, nor could Francisco Bayquen (or Bayken), who
claimed to have been present at the delivery of the message, state the contents thereof.

The only witness who asserted that Beronilla received and read the Volckmann
message, Exhibit H, was Rafael Balmaceda, a relative of Borjal, who claimed to have
been, as Beronillas bodyguard, present at the receipt of the message and to have read
it over Beronillas shoulder. This testimony, however, can not be accorded credence,
for the reason that in the affidavit executed by this witness before Fiscal Antonio of
Abra (Exhibit 4), Balmaceda failed to make any mention of the reading, or even the
receipt, of the message. In the affidavit, he stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. In your capacity as policeman, do you know of any unusual occurrence that
transpired in La Paz, Abra?. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what is that event? A. On April 17, 1945, I was assigned as guard
at the Presidencia where Mayor Arsenio Borjal is confined. On the 18th of April,
1945, six bolomen came to me while I was on duty as guard, that Mayor Borjal should
be tied, on orders of Mayor Manuel Beronilla. Mayor Borjal wanted to know the
reason why he would be tied, as he has not yet learned of the decision of the jury
against him. Mayor Borjal wrote a note to Mayor Beronilla, asking the reason for his
being ordered to be tied. I personally delivered the note of Borjal to Mayor Beronilla.
Mayor Beronilla did not answer the note, but instead told me that I should tie Mayor
Borjal, as tomorrow he would die, as he cannot escape. I returned to the Presidencia,
and Mayor Borjal was tied, as that was the order of Mayor Beronilla.."

The plain import of the affidavit is that the witness Rafael Balmaceda was not with
Beronilla when the message arrived, otherwise Beronilla would have given him his
orders direct, as he (Balmaceda) testified later at the trial. Moreover, it is difficult to
believe that having learned of the contents of the Volckmann message, Balmaceda
should not have relayed it to Borjal, or to some member of the latters family,
considering that they were relatives. In addition, Balmaceda was contradicted by
Bayken, another prosecution witness, as to the hatching of the alleged conspiracy to
kill Borjal. Balmaceda claimed that the accused-appellants decided to kill Borjal in the
early evening of April 18, while Bayken testified that the agreement was made about
ten oclock in the morning, shortly after the accused had denied Borjals petition to be
allowed to hear mass.

Upon the other hand, Beronillas conduct belies his receipt of the Volckmann
message. Had he executed Borjal in violation of superior orders, he would not have
dared to report it to Arnolds headquarters on the very same day, April 18th, 1945, as
he did (Exhibit 20), half an hour after the execution. And what is even more
important, if Borjal was executed contrary to instructions, how could Lt. Colonel
Arnold on April 22, 1945, write in reply (Exhibits 21, 21-a) "I can only compliment
you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case" instead of
berating Beronilla and ordering his court martial for disobedience?

Our conclusion is that Lt. Col. Arnold, for some reason that can not now be
ascertained, failed to transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla. And this being so,
the charge of criminal conspiracy to do away with Borjal must be rejected, because
the accused had no need to conspire against a man who was, to their knowledge, duly
sentenced to death.
The state claims that the appellants held grudges against the late Borjal. Even so, it
has been already decided that the concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration
with the enemy as motives for a liquidation does not operate to exclude the case from
the benefits of the Amnesty claimed by appellants, since then "it may not be held that
the manslaughter stemmed from purely personal motives" (People v. Barrioquinto,*
G. R. Nos. L-2011 and 2267, June 30, 1951). Actually, the conduct of the appellants
does not dispose that these appellants were impelled by malice (dolo). The arrest and
trial of Borjal were made upon express orders of the higher command; the appellants
allowed Borjal to be defended by counsel, one of them (attorney Jovito Barreras)
chosen by Borjals sister; the trial lasted nineteen (19) days; it was suspended when
doubts arose about its legality, and it was not resumed until headquarters (then in
Langangilang, Abra) authorized its resumption and sent an observer (Esteban
Cabanos, of the S-5) to the proceedings, and whose suggestions on procedure were
followed; and when the verdict of guilty was rendered and death sentence imposed,
the records were sent to Arnolds headquarters for review, and Borjal was not
punished until the records were returned eight days later with the statement of Arnold
that "whatever disposition you make of the case is hereby approved" (Exhibit 8),
which on its face was an assent to the verdict and the sentence. The lower Court, after
finding that the late Arsenio Borjal had really committed treasonable acts, (causing
soldiers and civilians to be tortured, and hidden American officers to be captured by
the Japanese) expressly declared that "the Court is convinced that it was not for
political or personal reason that the accused decided to kill Arsenio Borjal" (Decision,
p. 9; Record, p. 727).It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder, and
that the accused-appellants acted upon orders, of a superior officers 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 can not say
that criminal intent has been established (U. S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil., 507; Peo. v.
Pacana, 47 Phil., 48; Sent. of the Tribunal Supremo of Spain, 3 July 1886; 7 January
1901; 24 March 1900; 21 Feb. 1921; 25 March 1929). Actus non facit reum nisi mens
sit rea.

"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
consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non
facit reum, nisi mens rea-a is not committed if the mind of the person performing the
act complained of be innocent." (U. S. v. Catolico, 18 Phil., 507).
But even assuming that the accused-appellants did commit the crime with which they
are charged, the Court below should not have denied their claim to the benefits of the
Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (42 Off. Gaz., 2072) of the ground that the
slaying of Arsenio Borjal took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy
control and occupation. The evidence on record regarding the date of liberation of La
Paz, Abra, is contradictory. The Military Amnesty Commission that decided the case
of one of the original accused, Jesus Labuguen, held that La Paz, Abra, was liberated
on July 1, 1945, according to its records; and this finding was accepted by Judge
Letargo when he dismissed the case against said accused on March 15, 1949. On the
other hand, Judges Bocar and Hilario, who subsequently took cognizance of the case,
relied on Department Order No. 25, of the Department of the Interior, dated August
12, 1948, setting the liberation of the Province of Abra on April 4, 1945, fifteen days
before Borjal was slain. The two dates are not strictly contradictory; but even if they
are, we believe these appellants should be given the benefit of the Presidential
directive to the Amnesty Commissions (Adm. Order No. 11, of October 2, 1946) that
"any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty)
proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused" (42 Off. Gaz., 2360), as was
done in People v. Gajo, 84 Phil., 107, 46 Off. Gaz., (No. 12) p. 6093.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellants are
acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo
and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

89 Phil., 414.