People of the Philippines vs. Bernal

A subordinate who fires the fatal shot pursuant to an obviously illegal and unwarranted order is criminally liable for the killing; conspiracy, however, requires proof of a common criminal design and overt acts, not mere presence or possible interest.

Jose Bernal was a member of the military police stationed at Barugo, Leyte. Sgt. Ricardo Benting was a military police sergeant, while Vicente Roleda and Hermenegildo Salvoro were enlisted men who served under him in a patrol.

On September 20, 1947, Jose Bernal, a member of the military police stationed at Barugo, Leyte, went to his hometown Albuera under a three-day pass to attend a civil case. While in Barrio Binolho, Albuera, Leyte, he witnessed a game of "hantak" and had an altercation with Alfonso Pilones, during which Bernal punched him. That evening the two men met again, the dispute was renewed, and Pilones inflicted superficial bolo wounds on Bernal's left forearm and left hand.

Acting on the advice of Sgt. Geneston of the military police stationed at Camp Downes, Canadieng, Ormoc City, Bernal reported the incident to Capt. Trinidad of the camp. Capt. Trinidad called Sgt. Ricardo Benting and instructed him to organize a patrol to find and investigate Alfonso Pilones in connection with the incident reported by Bernal. Benting called Pvts. Roleda, Salvoro, and Lomod to accompany him, and with Bernal acting as guide, the patrol proceeded to Pilones's house in Barrio Binalho. Benting carried a pistol, while each of the enlisted men except Bernal, who was unarmed, carried a garand rifle. Upon being informed by Pilones's wife that he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law Jose Rosal in Ormoc, the patrol went to Rosal's house and found Pilones. Benting informed Pilones that he was wanted at headquarters. Rosal at first objected to their taking his brother-in-law because the patrol had no warrant of arrest, and he asked to be allowed to accompany Pilones to the camp; his request was granted.

On the way to the camp, when already very near it, Pilones was shot and killed by Roleda, supposedly by order of Sgt. Benting. The versions of the prosecution and the defense then diverged. According to the defense, Pilones grabbed the garand rifle of Salvoro and, while trying to take possession of it, cried for help; Benting ordered Roleda to fire shots in the air to scare Pilones, and Roleda fired four shots in the air. Pilones paid no attention and continued struggling with Salvoro until he succeeded in getting possession of the garand rifle, after which he ran down a slope toward a banana tree with the intention of hiding behind it and then firing at the soldiers. To forestall this criminal design, Roleda, by order of Sgt. Benting, fired at Pilones, hitting him in the back and causing his death.

According to the prosecution through its witness Jose Rosal, Pilones was shot in cold blood by order of Sgt. Benting. On the way to the camp, Benting had been questioning Pilones about possessing an unlicensed firearm and about having killed a military police soldier and a barrio lieutenant. As they neared the camp and were approaching a guard post, Benting, referring to Pilones, said to his soldiers, "he is bandit so we will maltreats him"; thereafter Benting gave the order to fire, and Roleda immediately shot the deceased in the back, killing him instantly.

The trial court found conspiracy among the accused and credited Roleda with the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation.

• Defense Version of the Shooting: The defendants-appellants maintained that Pilones grabbed Salvoro's garand rifle and struggled with him, that Benting ordered Roleda to fire warning shots, and that after Pilones obtained the rifle and ran toward a banana tree to hide and fire at the soldiers, Roleda, on Benting's order, shot him to forestall the criminal design.
• Roleda's Reliance on Superior's Order: The defense presented the shooting as occurring in response to Sgt. Benting's order and in the belief that Pilones was attempting to escape and attack the patrol.

• Acquittal of Bernal and Salvoro: The Solicitor General believed that Bernal and Salvoro were innocent and recommended their acquittal.
• No Passion or Obfuscation for Roleda: The Solicitor General disagreed with the trial court's grant of passion or obfuscation to Roleda, believing that Roleda was not influenced by any such passion or obfuscation but merely obeyed the order of his sergeant.
• Prosecution's Version: The prosecution, through Jose Rosal, maintained that Pilones was shot in cold blood by order of Sgt. Benting after Benting said of Pilones, "he is bandit so we will maltreats him," and then ordered the soldiers to fire.

• Credibility and Criminal Liability for the Shooting: Whether the defense version that Roleda shot Pilones to forestall his escape after Pilones wrested a rifle is credible, or whether the prosecution proved that Roleda shot Pilones in cold blood pursuant to Sgt. Benting's illegal order, making Roleda criminally liable.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established among Benting, Roleda, Bernal, and Salvoro so as to hold Bernal and Salvoro liable for the killing as co-conspirators.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Obfuscation: Whether Roleda acted under passion or obfuscation, warranting the mitigating circumstance credited by the trial court.

• Credibility and Criminal Liability for the Shooting: No. The defense version is not credible; Roleda is criminally liable. The order he obeyed was obviously illegal and unwarranted, and obedience to such an order does not excuse the resulting killing.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was not established; Bernal and Salvoro are acquitted. Mere presence or possible interest in the crime is insufficient; the prosecution must establish a logical relation and overt acts in pursuance of a common criminal design.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Obfuscation: Yes. Roleda is entitled to passion or obfuscation because Benting's statements led him to believe Pilones had killed a barrio lieutenant and a military police comrade, arousing resentment, and he was a subordinate obeying his patrol leader.

• Credibility and Criminal Liability for the Shooting: The defense version was rejected as improbable and incredible. The shooting occurred near the camp and a guard post, so Pilones would not likely choose that place to escape; he was practically surrounded by the soldiers, with Benting and Roleda leading, Pilones a few meters behind walking beside Salvoro, Bernal behind, Rosal following, and Lomod at the rear. If Pilones had struggled with Salvoro and Salvoro cried for help, Benting and Roleda would have rushed to overpower Pilones; instead, according to the defense, Bernal merely sat down. The defense also failed to present Pvt. Lomod to corroborate Roleda and Bernal, and failed to present Sgt. Benting, who gave the order to fire, on the crucial point. The Court accepted the prosecution's version that Benting suspected or believed Pilones kept an unlicensed firearm and had killed a barrio lieutenant and a military police member, decided to liquidate the prisoner, and ordered the shooting. Roleda fired following the order, but the order was obviously illegal and unwarranted; by following it, he had to answer for the consequence.
• Conspiracy: The trial court convicted Bernal and Salvoro on the theory of conspiracy, making them liable for the acts of their co-conspirators. No proof of conspiracy was found. The patrol was ordered by Capt. Trinidad only to find and question or investigate Pilones regarding his trouble or fight with Bernal. Bernal accompanied the patrol only as a guide, was unarmed, and evidently was satisfied to leave the case with the authorities; he reported the matter to the camp commander only because a sergeant advised him to do so. Salvoro joined the patrol by order, not through desire, and was merely present during the shooting without taking part. His failure to fire at Pilones when he heard Benting's order to shoot was proof that he had no previous agreement or understanding with his companions about harming the deceased. The prosecution must establish a logical relation between the commission of the crime and the supposed conspirators and a closer and more intimate connection among them, such as by their conduct or overt acts committed in pursuance of their common criminal design; these were wanting as to Bernal and Salvoro.
• Mitigating Circumstance of Obfuscation: The trial court gave Roleda the benefit of passion or obfuscation. The Solicitor General disagreed, arguing that Roleda merely obeyed his sergeant's order. The mitigating circumstance was sustained. Benting's questions to Pilones on the way to camp and his assertions and declarations led his companions to believe that Pilones had killed not only a barrio lieutenant but also a member of the military police, a comrade in arms. This may have aroused in Roleda a feeling of resentment that impelled him to readily and without questioning follow Benting's order. Added to this was Roleda's status as a subordinate of Benting, who gave the order, while out on patrol when soldiers were supposed to be under the immediate command and control of the patrol leader.

• Obedience to an Illegal Order — A subordinate who obeys an obviously illegal and unwarranted order is criminally liable for the consequences of the act performed in obedience to that order. In this case, Roleda fired the fatal shot at Pilones following Sgt. Benting's order, but because the order was illegal and unwarranted, Roleda had to answer for the killing.
• Conspiracy — Conspiracy requires proof of a common criminal design and overt acts committed in furtherance thereof; mere presence at the scene or possible interest in the crime is insufficient. The prosecution must establish a logical relation between the crime and the supposed conspirators and a closer and more intimate connection among them, such as by their conduct or overt acts. In this case, no such proof existed as to Bernal and Salvoro, so they were acquitted.
• Passion or Obfuscation — Passion or obfuscation may mitigate criminal liability where the accused's will is weakened by a feeling of resentment or obfuscation. It was credited to Roleda because Sgt. Benting's questions and declarations led him to believe that Pilones had killed a barrio lieutenant and a military police comrade, which may have aroused resentment and impelled him to follow Benting's order without questioning, especially as Roleda was Benting's subordinate on patrol.

• "It is true that Roleda fired at the prisoner following the order of his sergeant, but the order was obviously illegal and unwarranted, and for the following an illegal order, he must answer for the consequence." — States the rule on obedience to illegal orders and supplies the basis for Roleda's criminal liability.
• "The prosecution must establish a logical relation between the commission of the crime and the supposed conspirators and a closer and more intimate connection between and among the latter, such as by their conduct or overt acts committed in pursuance of their common criminal design." — States the evidentiary standard for conspiracy, applied to acquit Bernal and Salvoro.
• "Considering that Benting by his questions directed at Pilones while on their way to the camp and by his assertions and declarations led his companions to believe that Pilones had killed not only a barrio lieutenant but also a member of the military police, — a comrade in his arms, this may have aroused in Roleda a feeling of resentment that may have impelled him to readily and without questioning follow the order of Sgt. Benting." — States the basis for the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation in Roleda's favor.

• U. S. vs. Cuison, 20 Phil., 439 — Cited in a footnote following the Court's discussion of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation in favor of Roleda. The decision does not elaborate on its holding or application.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, and Labrador, JJ., concur.