People of the Philippine Islands vs. Barroga

Obedience to a superior's instructions does not exempt a subordinate from criminal liability for falsification of a private document where the order is unlawful and not within the superior's authority. Only obedience that is legally due—compliance with a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty and issued within the scope of the superior's authority—can exempt from guilt.

Luciano Barroga y Salgado was prosecuted for falsification of a private document, and the trial court ordered him to indemnify the Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas in the sum of P10,857.11. Barroga described Baldomero Fernandez as his immediate chief and Hermenegildo de la Cruz as head of the pressmen; the documents were collated with the books of the daily pressings. The defense invoked obedience to a superior's instructions, raising the legal question of when such obedience exempts a subordinate from criminal liability.

Luciano Barroga y Salgado was charged with falsification of a private document. The charge concerned falsified documents that Barroga prepared.

Barroga freely admitted that he prepared the falsified documents with full knowledge of their falsity. He alleged, however, that he did so from data furnished by his immediate chief, the now deceased Baldomero Fernandez, and only in obedience to instructions from Fernandez.

The Court found that the data were not supplied by Baldomero Fernandez but by Hermenegildo de la Cruz, the head of the pressmen, and that Barroga later collated them with the books of the daily pressings. It also found that it had not been proved that Barroga committed the acts charged in the information in obedience to the instructions of a third party.

• Credibility of Evidence: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in considering the evidence of the prosecution more worthy of credit than that of the defense.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support the finding of guilt and the imposition of the penalty of one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, the indemnity of P10,857.11, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs.
• Obedience to Superior's Instructions: Appellant admitted preparing the falsified documents with full knowledge of their falsity but claimed he did so from data furnished by his immediate chief, the now deceased Baldomero Fernandez, and only in obedience to Fernandez's instructions.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in considering the prosecution evidence more worthy of credit than the defense evidence and in finding the appellant guilty notwithstanding the alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
• Obedience to Superior's Instructions: Whether the appellant's preparation of the falsified documents in alleged obedience to instructions from his immediate chief exempted him from criminal liability for falsification of a private document.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The Supreme Court found no merit in the assignments of error and affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant.
• Obedience to Superior's Instructions: No. Even assuming the instructions were given, they were unlawful and did not legally shield the appellant; obedience exempts only when it is legally due, meaning compliance with a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty and issued within the superior's authority.

• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found no merit in the assigned errors. It also found that the data used in the falsified documents were not supplied by Baldomero Fernandez but by Hermenegildo de la Cruz, head of the pressmen, and that Barroga later collated them with the books of the daily pressings. The judgment of conviction was therefore affirmed with costs.
• Obedience to Superior's Instructions: The Court assumed for argument that Fernandez gave the instructions and that Barroga committed the crime by virtue thereof, but held that such instructions were not lawful and did not legally shield him or relieve him from criminal liability. Obedience, to exempt from guilt, must be due; it must be compliance with a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a subaltern, and the person commanding must act within the scope of his authority. Although an inferior should generally obey a superior, the choice is not doubtful between a general law enjoining obedience to a superior giving just orders and a prohibitive law forbidding what that superior commands. The Court reiterated that it had not been proved that Barroga committed the acts charged in obedience to a third party's instructions, but even granting such obedience, it was not legally due and did not exempt him from criminal liability, citing U.S. vs. Cuison, 20 Phil. 433.

• Obedience to Superior Orders — A subordinate's compliance with a superior's order does not exempt the subordinate from criminal liability unless the order is lawful, is not opposed to a higher positive duty of the subordinate, and is issued by the superior within the scope of his authority. The Court applied this rule to reject Barroga's defense: even if his immediate chief had instructed him to prepare the falsified documents, the order was unlawful and could not shield him from liability.

• "The defendant freely admits that he prepared the falsified documents with full knowledge of their falsity; but he alleges that he did so from data furnished by his immediate chief, the now deceased Baldomero Fernandez, and only in obedience to instructions from him." — Sets out the accused's admission and the defense of obedience to superior instructions.
• "In order to exempt from guilt, obedience must be due, or as Viada lucidly states, it must be a compliance with "a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a subaltern, and that the person commanding, act within the scope of his authority."" — States the controlling rule on when obedience to a superior exempts from criminal liability.
• "But even granting, for the sake of argument, that such was the case, we repeat that such obedience was not legally due, and therefore does not exempt from criminal liability. (U. S. vs Cuison, 20 Phil., 433.)" — Gives the ratio decidendi rejecting the defense even if the superior had issued the instructions.
• "There being no merit in the assignments of error, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered." — States the dispositive ruling affirming the conviction.

• U.S. vs. Cuison, 20 Phil. 433 — Cited by the Court to support the holding that obedience to an unlawful order is not legally due and does not exempt the actor from criminal liability.

• Penal Code (1 Penal Code, Viada, 5th edition, p. 528) — The Court cited this commentary for the rule that obedience, to exempt from guilt, must be compliance with a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a subaltern and issued by a person acting within the scope of his authority.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.