Title
People vs. Beronilla
Case
G.R. No. L-4445
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1955
Appellants, acting under guerrilla orders during WWII, executed a former mayor accused of aiding the enemy. Acquitted under amnesty, lacking criminal intent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4445)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: The People of the Philippines
Respondents/Appellants: Manuel Beronilla, Policarpo Paculdo, Filipino Velasco, Jacinto Adriatico

Key Dates

• April 18, 1945 – Jury returns death sentence; execution carried out that night.
• July 10, 1950 – Court of First Instance convicts Beronilla, Paculdo, Velasco, Adriatico of murder.
• February 28, 1955 – Supreme Court renders its decision.

Applicable Law

• 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force in 1955)
• Revised Penal Code (crime of murder; requirements of criminal intent)
• Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 (Executive Proclamation by President Roxas granting amnesty for acts in resistance to the Japanese)
• Administrative Order No. 11 (directive to resolve any reasonable doubt in favor of the accused)

Trial and Execution under Military Jurisdiction

In March 1945, Borjal returned to La Paz and was placed under guerrilla custody on charges of espionage and collaboration, based on instructions from 15th Infantry Headquarters. A 12-man “bolomen” jury was convened; after a 19-day trial, it found Borjal guilty and recommended the death penalty. Lt. Col. Arnold reviewed and returned the case papers on April 18, approving “whatever disposition” Beronilla might make. That same evening, Beronilla ordered Borjal’s execution; Jacinto Adriatico acted as executioner, and Filipino Velasco performed rites.

Post-war Indictment and Trial

In 1947 the four principal actors were indicted for murder. One juror obtained amnesty; several others were dismissed for lack of evidence. On July 10, 1950, the trial court acquitted most co-defendants but convicted Beronilla, Paculdo, Velasco, and Adriatico as co-principals, sentencing them to reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity to Borjal’s heirs. The court denied amnesty benefits on the ground that Borjal’s execution occurred after the area’s liberation.

Legality of Execution and Receipt of Superior Orders

The Supreme Court examined whether Beronilla disobeyed a specific order from Col. Volckmann—delivered in a radiogram (Exhibit H)—prohibiting guerrilla juries from trying collaborators. Evidence failed to show that Beronilla ever received or read the Volckmann message. Witness testimony was inconsistent, and the conduct of Lt. Col. Arnold (praising Beronilla after the execution) confirmed that no superior order to halt the sentence had reached him. Because Beronilla acted under instructions he believed lawful, there was no conspiracy to override or conceal superior commands.

Absence of Criminal Intent

Under the doctrine actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the Court noted that to establish murder there must be criminal intent. The appellants conducted a formal trial, allowed defense counsel, observed procedural safeguards, and sought—and received—approval from higher headquarters before executing the sentence. These facts negated any deliberate criminal intent or malice beyond obedience to perceived lawful orders.

Application of Guerrilla Amn

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.