University of the Philippines College of Law

JGDRL D2022
The People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Beronilla, Filipino Velasco, Policarpio Paculdo, and Jacinto
Case Name
Adriatico (People v. Beronilla)
Topic Justifying circumstances – Lawful order of superior
Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-4445 February 28, 1955
Ponente Reyes, J.B.L., J.
Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra at the outbreak of war and continued to serve as Mayor
during Japanese occupation. Beronilla was appointed later as Military Mayor. Later, while the operations
for the liberation of Abra was in progress, Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal in his
custody and asked the residents to file charges of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority
against him. After trial, Borjal’s execution took place. Later, Beronilla, together with a priest, executioner,
graver digger, etc. were indicted for murder. The prosecution claimed that Col. Volkmann transmitted a
Case Summary radiogram message stating that the jury system organized by the municipality is illegal and cannot order
execution of Borjal.

The Court ruled that there is no proof that Beronilla was able to receive the radiogram message. The
records are ample to sustain the claim of the accused that the arrest, prosecution and trial were done
pursuant to express orders of the Lt. Col. Arnold.
Where the accused acted upon orders of superior officers that the accused, as military subordinates,
could not question and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality and without any fault
Doctrine or negligence on their part, the act is not accompanied by criminal intent.
A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act be innocent.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Arsenio Borjal served as elected Mayor of La Paz, Abra during the Japanese occupation, until March 10, 1943, when he
moved to Bangued because of an attempt upon his life by unknown persons.
2. Manuel Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor of La Paz in December 18, 1944 by Lt. Col. R. H. Arnold.
a. He received a memorandum from Lt. Col. Arnold authorizing Military Mayors "to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try
persons accused of treason, espionage, or the aiding and abetting (of) the enemy".
b. He also received from the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list of all puppet government officials of the province of
Abra (including 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.
3. Borjal and his family returned to La Paz in order to escape the bombing of Bangued. Borjal was charged with espionage,
aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority. A 12-man jury was appointed by Beronilla. The trial lasted 19 days up to April 10,
1945. The jury found Borjal guilty on all accounts. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to the Headquarters of
the 15th Infantry for review.
4. April 18, 1945 - Lt. Col. Arnold’s instructions/ reply: The matter is best handled by the government of La Paz and whatever
disposition Beronilla makes of the case is hereby approved. On the night of the same day, Beronilla ordered the execution
of Borjal.
5. Immediately after the execution, Beronilla reported the matter to Col. Arnold.
a. Col. Arnold’s reply: “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 independent way of handling the whole case.”
6. Two years thereafter, defendants were indicted in CFI of Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the
execution of Borjal.
a. Pres. Roxas issued EO No. 8 – granting amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized under the RPC in
furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
b. Defendants filed for application for amnesty with the Second Guerrilla Amnesty Commission, which then denied their
application on the ground that the crime had been inspired by purely personal motives, and remanded the case to CFI
of Abra.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
JGDRL D2022
7. July 10, 1950 – The Court rendered judgment convicting defendants, as conspirator and co-principals, of the crime of
murder, and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Borjal.
a. Court a quo found that while the crime committed fell within the provisions of the Amnesty Proclamation, they were
not entitled to the benefits because the crime was committed after the expiration of the time limit fixed by the
Amnesty Proclamation (Borjal was executed after the liberation of La Paz).
8. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The state predicates its case principally on the existence of a radiogram
from Col. Volckmann, overall area commander, to Lt. Col. Arnold, specifically calling attention to the illegality of Borjal's
conviction and sentence, and which the prosecution claims was known to the accused Beronilla.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the message sent NO. No satisfactory proof that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram or any copy thereof.
by Col. Volckmann was  The messenger, Pedro Molina, could not state what papers were enclosed in the package he
relayed by Lt. Col. delivered to Beronilla on that morning.
Arnold to Beronilla  Rafael Balmaceda, relative of Borjal and Beronilla’s bodyguard, claimed to have been present
at the receipt of the message and to have read it over Beronilla's shoulder. His testimony
cannot be accorded credence because the affidavit he executed prior to testifying failed to
make any mention of the reading, or even the receipt of the message.
 On the other hand, Beronilla’s conduct belies his receipt of the Volckmann message.
o Had he executed Borjal in violation of superior orders, he would not have dared to report
it to Arnold's headquarters on the very same day.
o More importantly, if Borjal was executed contrary to instructions, how could Lt. Col.
Arnold commend Beronilla for his "impartial but independent way of handling the whole
case" instead of berating Beronilla and ordering his court martial for disobedience?
W/N Beronilla is guilt of NO.
criminal conspiracy to  Court’s conclusion is that Lt. Col. Arnold, for some reason that cannot now be ascertained,
do away with Borjal failed to transmit Col. Volckmann’s message to Beronilla. Hence, Beronilla had no need to
conspire against a man who was, to their knowledge, duly sentenced to death.
 The conduct of the defendants does not dispose that they were impelled by malice (dolo).
o The arrest and trial of Borjal were made upon express orders of the higher command;
Borjal was defended by counsel; the trial lasted 19 days; and when the verdict of guilty
was rendered and death sentence imposed, the records were sent to Arnold's
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", which on its face was an assent to the verdict and the
sentence.

RULING
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 cannot say that criminal intent has been established.

But even assuming that the accused-appellant did commit crime with they are charged, the Court below should not have denied
their claim to the benefits of the Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 on 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. Presidential directive to the Amnesty Commissions provides that "any reasonable
doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty) proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused".

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellants are acquitted.