People V Beronilla

DE GUZMAN, KRISANTA
2020-80153
PEOPLE V. BERONILLA
G. R. NO. L-4445, 28 February 1955
FACTS:
Beronilla was appointed as Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col. Arnold, operating a guerilla
unit in the province of Abra. A memorandum issued by Lt. Col. Arnold authorized them to
appoint a jury of 12 bolomen in order to investigate persons accused of treason, espionage, or
aiding and abetting of the enemy. The list therein included elected mayor of La Paz, Arsenio
Borjal.
Beronilla, accrding to instructions, placed Borjal under custody and asked the residents of La
Paz to file complaints against him. Charges of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of
authority were led against Borjal. The jury found Borjal guilty and sentenced him with the
death penalty.
A radiogram from overall commander Col. Volckmann called the attention of the illegality of
Borjal’s conviction and sentence, which was unknown to Beronilla, and was convicted, along
with three others, of murder.
The Late President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation No, 8, granting amnesty to
all persons who committed acts under the RPC anent the resistance to the enemy against
persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy, resulting in the dismissal of some bolomen
involved in the jury but still convicting Beronilla and three others, since the crime was
committed upon the expiration of the time limit fixed by the amnesty proclamation.
ISSUE:
Whether Beronilla’s and three others’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances for
obedience to lawful order of superior.
RULING:
Yes. Lt. Col. Arnold 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 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,
and the appellants allowed Borjal to be defended by counsel. 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) he expressly declared
that "the Court is convinced that it was not for political or personal reason that the accused
decided to kill Arsenio Borjal.” 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, it cannot be said 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 consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit
reum, nisi mens rea-“a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of be innocent."
Lt. Col. Arnold, 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 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
 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"
 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
 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
Lt. Col. Arnold, 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 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
 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"
 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
 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

People V Beronilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Beronilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Beronilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE GUZMAN, KRISANTA

You might also like