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 appointed Military 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 on the 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.

U.S. v. AH CHONG [15 Phil. 488 (1910)] Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed & called out again, If you enter the room I will kill you. But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, & believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife & struck & fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Ratio: Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under A11, par. 1, of the RPC, which requires, to justify the act, that there be: unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, & lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under A11 of the RPC, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making the defense. PEOPLE v. TANEO [58 Phil. 255 (1933)] Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parents house in Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house, among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father, after which, he wounded himself. Potencianos wife, who was 7 months pregnant at that time, died five days later as a result of the wound. The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime, the defendant had a quarrel over a glass of tuba with Collantes and Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight. When he was about to go down, he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad and weak, had a severe stomachache thats why he went to bed in the early afternoon. The defendant stated that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. Thats why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down; he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then, he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way. Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream. Ratio: Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore, werent voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. In the case at hand, the

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