7/31/2019 Case Digest Ust Law
1/3
PEOPLE v. BERONILLA [96 Phil. 566 (1955)]
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Abra, convicting
the accused of murder.
Facts: Arsenio Borjal was mayor of La Paz Abra at the outbreak
of war and continued to serve as mayor
during the Japanese occupation. Dec 19, 1944 accused-appellant
Manuel Beronilla was appointedMilitary Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col
Arnold. Simultaneously, he received a memorandum issued by
Arnold
authorizing them to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons
accused of treason, espionage or aiding
the enemy. He also received a list of all puppet government
officials of Abra, with a memorandum
instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and
gather against them complaints. Beronilla,
pursuant to his instructions placed Borjal under custody and
asked residents of La Paz to file case against
him. He also appointed a 12-man jury composed of Labuguen as
chairman and others, plus Alverne and
Balmaceda were prosecutors; Paculdo as clerk of the jury, and
Inovermo as counsel for the accused,
later Atty. Barreras voluntarily appeared as counsel for Borjal.
The jury found Borjal guilty on all counts
and imposed death penalty. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records
of the case to Headquarters of
Infantry for review. Records were returned on April 18, 1945
with approval of Arnold. On the same day,
Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Immediately after the
execution, Beronilla reported the
execution to Arnold, the latter complementing Beronilla.
Two years later, Mayor Beronillo and others involved in the
Borjal case were indicted by CFI of Abra for
murder, for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the
execution of Borjal. Pres. Roxas issued E.P. no.
8, granting amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized,
under RPC in furtherance of
resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war
efforts of the enemy. All the accused (except
Labuguen who filed and granted amnesty by the AFP), filed their
application to Second Guerilla Amnesty
Commission, which denied their application on the ground that
they were inspired by purely personal
motives, thus remanding case to CFI for trial on merits. On July
10, 1950 Beronillo, Paculdo, Velasco and
Adriatico were convicted as conspirator and co-principals of
crime murder. They appealed.
Issue: WON accused appellants are guilty of murder; and WON they
should be granted amnesty.
Held: The records are ample to show that Beronilla acted
pursuant to the orders of the Infantry
Headquarters. Although it was alleged by the state that there
was a radiogram from certain Col.
Volkmann to Lt. Col. Arnold, on the illegality of Borjals
execution, there are no sufficient evidence to
show that it was known to Beronilla. Furthermore, the messages
of Col. Arnold approving the decisions
of Beronilla prove otherwise. The testimony of Rafael Balmaceda,
relative of Borjal was also unreliable.
The state claims that the appellants held grudges against late
Borjal, but court said that the conduct of
the appellants does not dispose that they were impelled by
malice. In fact, prior to the execution,
Beronilla sent the decision for review. The lower court also
found that Borjal was really guilty of
treasonable acts. The court held that the accused-appellants
just acted upon the orders of superiors and
criminal intent was not established.
Even assuming the accused-appellant are guilty of murder, they
should not be denied of the amnesty onthe ground that the slaying
took place after actual liberation of the area from enemy control.
The court
held that any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls
within the amnesty proclamation shall
be resolved in favor of the accused.
7/31/2019 Case Digest Ust Law
3/3
court found not only lack of motives for the defendant to
voluntarily commit the acts complained of
(read: he loved his wife dearly, he tried to attack his father
in whose house the lived and the guests
whom he invited), but also motives for not committing the
acts.
Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the case, stated that
considering the circumstances of the case, the
defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of a
hallucination and not in his right mind.
The wifes wound may have been inflicted accidentally. The
defendant did not dream that he was
assaulting his wife, but that he was defending himself from his
enemies.
Judgment: defendant not criminally liable for the offense. It
was also ordered that he be confined in the
government insane asylum and will not be released until the
director thereof finds that his liberty would
no longer constitute a menace
