Scribd
Upload
359 views2 pages

People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566 (1955)

The defendants were military subordinates who arrested, tried, and executed the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra on orders of their superior officers during wartime. While the lower court convicted them, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the defendants acted in good faith on lawful orders without awareness of any illegality. Their conduct during the trial did not show malice. Additionally, any doubts about whether the defendants qualified for an amnesty proclamation should have been resolved in their favor. The Supreme Court acquitted the defendants.

Uploaded by

Nico Ian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
359 views2 pages

People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil. 566 (1955)

The defendants were military subordinates who arrested, tried, and executed the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra on orders of their superior officers during wartime. While the lower court convicted them, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the defendants acted in good faith on lawful orders without awareness of any illegality. Their conduct during the trial did not show malice. Additionally, any doubts about whether the defendants qualified for an amnesty proclamation should have been resolved in their favor. The Supreme Court acquitted the defendants.

Uploaded by

Nico Ian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE V BERONILLA

Obedience to Lawful Order of a Superior

Facts:

 Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal from
the judgement of the Abra CFI, which convicted them of murder for the execution of Arsenio
Borjal, the elected mayor of La, Paz, Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found to be aiding
the enemy.
 Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel
Beronilla, who was appointed by Lt. Col. Arbold, regimental commander of the 15th Infantry of
the Phil. Army, operating as guerilla unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon his appointment,
Beronilla received a memorandum which authorized him to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try
persons accused of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy.
 Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, to escape bombing in Bangued, he was placed
under custody and tried and sentenced to death by the jury based on various complaints made
by the residents. Beronilla reported this to Col. Arnold who replied, saying “…I can only
compliment you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case.”
 Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the executioner, digger and jury, were indicted for
the murder of Borjal. Soon after, President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8,
which granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to the
enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
 The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty, but Beronilla and others were
convicted on the grounds that the crime was made on purely personal motives and that the
crime was committed after the expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation.

Issue:

 W/N the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances for obedience to
lawful order of superior

Held:

 Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers, which as military subordinates,
they could not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of its illegality.
 The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of
Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. Additionally, it could not be
established that Beronilla received the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann, overall area
commander, which called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. Had
Beronilla known the violation, he would not have dared to report it to Arnold. The conduct of
the accused also does not show malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial, defense
through counsel given to Borjal, suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and death
sentence review sent to the superior officers.
 Criminal intent then could not be established. The maxim here is actus non facit reum, nisi mens
rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of to be
innocent).
 Additionally, the lower court should not have denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerilla
Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 inspite of contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz, Abra. Even if
the dates were contradictory, the court should have found for the Beronila, et al because if
there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty)
proclamation should be resolved in favor of the accused.”
 Judgement reversed, appellants acquitted.

You might also like