Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

GR L 4445 PP V Beronilla Feb 28 1955

The Supreme Court overturned the murder convictions of Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco, and Jacinto Adriatico for executing Arsenio Borjal in 1945. Beronilla, as the appointed military mayor, received authorization to try persons accused of treason or aiding the enemy. Beronilla appointed a jury that included the other appellants and they found Borjal guilty, sentencing him to death. The Court found the appellants acted on orders from their superior and in good faith, without being aware of any illegality. Even if a crime was committed, the appellants were entitled to amnesty under the guerrilla amnesty proclamation.

Uploaded by

ManuelMarasiganMismanos
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
1K views2 pages

GR L 4445 PP V Beronilla Feb 28 1955

The Supreme Court overturned the murder convictions of Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco, and Jacinto Adriatico for executing Arsenio Borjal in 1945. Beronilla, as the appointed military mayor, received authorization to try persons accused of treason or aiding the enemy. Beronilla appointed a jury that included the other appellants and they found Borjal guilty, sentencing him to death. The Court found the appellants acted on orders from their superior and in good faith, without being aware of any illegality. Even if a crime was committed, the appellants were entitled to amnesty under the guerrilla amnesty proclamation.

Uploaded by

ManuelMarasiganMismanos
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 vs.

Beronilla
G.R. L-4445 Feb 28, 1955

PP VS BERONILLA
GR NO. L-4445

FACTS

This is an appeal by accused Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino


Velasco, and Jacinto Adriatico from the judgment of the Court of First Instance
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.Borjal, the elected mayor
of La Paz at the outbreak of war, was accused of treason, espionage, or the
aiding and abetting (of ) the enemy. The accused Beronilla, the appointed
Military Mayor, 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. One of the puppet government officials is Borjal.

Pursuant to the memorandum, he placed Borjal under custody and asked


residents of La Paz to file case against him. He also appointed a 12-man jury
including Adriatico, Velasco, and Paculdo who served as the clerk of jury. Borjal
was found guilty and was imposed with the death penalty. After compliance of
execution, Beronilla reported to Arnold. Two years later, 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 and they were
convicted for murder.

ISSUE
Whether or not the accused are guilty for murder
Whether or not they are entitled of amnesty
HELD
Our conclusion is that Lt. Col. Arnold, for some reason that cannot 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"
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.

You might also like