People vs. Rogsdo, et al.

Obedience to an order of a superior will only justify an act which would otherwise be criminal when the order is for a lawful purpose. A killing committed in furtherance of a rebellion is absorbed by the crime of rebellion only when it is not inspired by personal motive; where the killing is done to satisfy personal anger or thwarted desires, it is subject to separate prosecution for murder.

The appellants were members of the Hukbalahap (Huk) movement, an armed group that had risen against government forces. They had previously been prosecuted and convicted of rebellion in Criminal Case No. SP-137 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The present case arose from a separate charge of murder for the killing of Salvador Areza, a civilian farmer with no connection to law enforcement, which the appellants claimed was done in furtherance of the Huk rebellion.

On July 12, 1956, Salvador Areza, a farmer residing in Lilio, Laguna, left his house carrying a bolo to gather firewood in his farm in barrio Bubukal. When he failed to return home that day, his wife Lydia Nudal went out to search for him, accompanied by armed men, the mayor, and a sanitary health officer. They found the decapitated body of her husband in an uninhabited place in Bubukal, about half a kilometer away from the road. Areza's head was totally severed from his body, with his hands tied together. The health officer, Dr. Dominador L. Gomez, found the body in a state of decomposition and concluded that the deceased must have died three to five days prior to discovery. Areza's bolo and scabbard were found near his body.

On the same day, Teodulo Rogado, alias Commander Sulit, Isaac Orenia, alias Commander Lawin, Domingo Golfeo, alias Eser, Cresencio Arsenal, alias Sako, Pedro Merin, alias Nestor, Maximo Cerebo, alias Maneng, Pio Mercurio, alias Abling, Nemesio Arsolacia, alias Noli, Francisco Racoma, alias Rolando, and Conrado Devesa, alias Donato, were on their way from barrio Sta. Lucia, Nagcarlan, to the municipality of Lilio, Laguna. They lost their way and met Salvador Areza, whom Racoma and Devesa approached to ask for directions. Areza informed them that they were in barrio Bubukal, that there was an army camp stationed nearby, and that the soldiers occasionally go on patrol to the barrios.

The information was reported to Commander Sulit (Rogado), who ordered that Areza be brought to him. After talking with him, Rogado asked Areza to lead the way for them, but Areza refused, saying he had much work to do and had a carabao with him. After a brief talk with Orenia, alias Commander Lawin, Rogado told Racoma that they were taking along Areza and that if he should refuse, he should be tied. Racoma relayed this instruction to his two companions, Merin and Arsenal, telling them to be prepared in case Areza would give them a fight. Racoma then approached Areza and asked if he could borrow his bolo, and Areza obliged. When Areza refused to go with them, Pio Mercurio dragged him along, and as he refused, Golfeo struck him with the butt of his gun.

After walking a short distance, Mercurio tied Areza's hands behind him. Areza protested, telling Mercurio that he had not done anything wrong, whereupon Golfeo gave him a fist blow on his stomach. After walking some distance, a command to stop was heard and they stopped. Racoma approached Rogado and told him that they should release Areza at night, but Rogado told him that Areza should be killed. When Racoma returned to the group, he found that Areza was being assaulted by Orenia and Golfeo. At this moment, Racoma heard Rogado saying, in the vernacular, "Kill him now so we can proceed." Areza was then taken to a secluded place quite far from the road, in a thick forest about 20 or 30 meters away from the group, and there Golfeo ordered Areza to lie down. With Areza's bolo and ignoring the plea for mercy of their victim, Golfeo gave him a blow on the neck as he lay face down with his hands still tied behind. With the same bolo, Arsenal also gave the victim another blow on the neck which completely severed the head from the body.

On September 20, 1956, Pedro Merin, a member of the group who surrendered to the authorities, made a sworn statement before the Justice of the Peace of Nagcarlan, Laguna, stating that Salvador Areza was killed by Ezer and Sako upon order of Commander Sulit. Domingo Golfeo also made a sworn statement before the Justice of the Peace of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, admitting his participation in the killing of Areza upon order of Commander Sulit. On September 21, 1956, Cresencio Arsenal also made a written statement before the Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, admitting that he was one of those who killed Areza. Both Golfeo and Arsenal claimed in exculpation that they acted under the pressure of an irresistible force in that they merely obeyed the order of their Commander, Rogado, who would have killed them if they disobeyed his order. The other appellants contended that the killing was done in furtherance of the huk rebellion.

• Irresistible Force (Golfeo): Appellant Golfeo argued that he acted under the influence of uncontrollable fear, having merely obeyed the order of his commander, Rogado, who would have killed him if he disobeyed, and that he should therefore be exempt from criminal responsibility.
• Irresistible Force (Arsenal): Appellant Arsenal similarly claimed that he acted in obedience to Rogado's order and under fear of retaliation if he disobeyed his superiors' order.
• Absorption by Rebellion and Double Jeopardy: The appellants argued that they killed Areza not for personal motive but in furtherance of the huk rebellion, and that having already been prosecuted and convicted of rebellion in Criminal Case No. SP-137, their prosecution for murder would constitute double jeopardy.
• Threat to Inform the Army: The appellants attempted to show that Areza was killed because he threatened to inform the Army of their presence in the neighborhood.

• Direct Participation as Principals: The prosecution established that Golfeo and Arsenal directly participated in the killing, with Golfeo striking the first blow and Arsenal delivering the fatal blow that severed Areza's head.
• Personal Motive, Not Rebellion: The prosecution maintained that the killing was done solely to satisfy the anger of Rogado, who could not tolerate Areza's refusal to carry out his wishes, and that the rebellious movement had nothing to gain by Areza's death.

• Irresistible Force / Obedience to Superior Orders: Whether the defense of Golfeo and Arsenal that they acted under uncontrollable fear and in obedience to the orders of their commander is sufficient to exonerate them from criminal liability.
• Absorption by Rebellion and Double Jeopardy: Whether the killing of Areza was done in furtherance of the huk rebellion such that it is absorbed by the crime of rebellion, and whether the appellants' prior prosecution for rebellion bars their prosecution for murder.

• Irresistible Force / Obedience to Superior Orders: No. The defense is untenable because obedience to an order of a superior only justifies an act when the order is for a lawful purpose, and the circumstances under which Golfeo and Arsenal participated in the killing negate any claim of uncontrollable fear.
• Absorption by Rebellion and Double Jeopardy: No. The killing was inspired by personal motive and was not absorbed by the rebellion; moreover, the acts charged were not included in the information for rebellion in Criminal Case No. SP-137, so no double jeopardy attached.

• Irresistible Force / Obedience to Superior Orders: The Court applied the well-settled rule that obedience to an order of a superior will only justify an act which would otherwise be criminal when the order is for a lawful purpose. The circumstances under which Golfeo participated in the torture and liquidation of Areza cannot justify his claim of uncontrollable fear. First, Golfeo was armed with an automatic carbine and could have protected himself from any retaliation on the part of his superiors. Second, Areza was brought to a secluded place quite far from where his superiors were, and Golfeo and Arsenal could have escaped with Areza to avoid the ire of their superiors. The fact that Golfeo carried out the order although his superiors were at some distance, and that he struck his victim in a Kempetai fashion without pity, shows that he acted out of his own free will and with the desire to collaborate with the criminal design of his superiors. The same reasoning applies to Arsenal, who directly cooperated with Golfeo in carrying out the concerted plan of killing Areza.

• Absorption by Rebellion and Double Jeopardy: The Court distinguished People vs. Hernandez, which held that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder because the latter offense is absorbed by the former, from People vs. Geronimo, which held that if the killing is inspired by personal motive, such killing is not absorbed by the rebellion but may be the subject of separate prosecution. The acts with which the appellants were charged were not included in the information for rebellion in Criminal Case No. SP-137, which merely accused them of having risen and taken up arms against government forces without specifying particular acts against private persons. The pretense that the killing was done in furtherance of the huk rebellion was rejected as preposterous, as Areza was a mere farmer with no connection to any law-enforcement agency. The trial court's observation was adopted: the killing was done solely to satisfy the anger of Rogado, who could not tolerate Areza's refusal to carry out his wishes. The rebellious movement had nothing to gain by Areza's death; on the contrary, Rogado and his group needed Areza alive to serve as their guide. The claim that Areza threatened to inform the Army was likewise rejected as ridiculous, as Areza, being alone and confronted with a group of armed men, could not have hurled such a threat without courting immediate death.

• Obedience to Superior Orders — Obedience to an order of a superior will only justify an act which would otherwise be criminal when the order is for a lawful purpose. The Court applied this rule to reject the defense of Golfeo and Arsenal, who claimed they merely obeyed the order of their commander to kill Areza; because the order was unlawful, obedience to it did not justify the killing.

• Absorption of Crimes by Rebellion — While there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder because the latter offense is absorbed by the former, a distinction exists: if the killing is inspired by personal motive, such killing is not absorbed by the rebellion but may be the subject of separate prosecution. The Court applied this distinction to hold that the killing of Areza, done to satisfy personal anger, was not absorbed by the rebellion charge.

• Irresistible Force — For the defense of irresistible force to exonerate an accused, the compulsion must be such that the accused acted involuntarily or under the pressure of fear of force. The Court found that the circumstances — Golfeo being armed, the superiors being at a distance, and the opportunity to escape — negated any claim of uncontrollable fear.

• "The defense of Golfeo is clearly untenable not only because of the well-settled rule that obedience to an order of a superior will only justify an act which otherwise would be criminal when the order is for a lawful purpose, but also because the circumstances under which Golfeo participated in the torture and liquidation of Areza cannot in any way justify his claim that he acted under an uncontrollable fear of being punished by his superiors if they disobeyed their order." — This passage states the controlling rule on obedience to superior orders and the Court's rejection of the irresistible force defense, forming the core of the ruling on this issue.

• "The killing of Areza was done solely to satisfy the anger of the leader, rogado, who being used to the blind obedience of his men could not tolerate the refusal of Areza to carry out his wishes and desires. The rebellious movement of the group had nothing to gain by Atienza's death." — This quotation from the trial court, adopted by the Supreme Court, establishes the personal motive behind the killing, which is the basis for holding that the murder was not absorbed by rebellion.

• "When the killing is done solely for the purpose of answering the lust to kill or of satisfying angered feelings, thwarted desires of leaders and followers of the Hukbalahap movement, such a killing must receive its due punishment at the hands of our courts which are called upon to do justice not only to the living but just as well to the dead." — This passage articulates the principle that killings motivated by personal anger, even when committed by members of a rebel movement, are not absorbed by rebellion and must be punished separately.

• People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 — Cited as the ruling that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder because the latter offense is absorbed by the former; distinguished in the present case because the killing here was inspired by personal motive.
• People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 — Cited as the controlling distinction: if the killing is inspired by personal motive, such killing is not absorbed by the rebellion but may be the subject of separate prosecution; applied to the facts of the present case.

• Article on Rebellion (Revised Penal Code) — The Court considered the crime of rebellion in relation to the appellants' claim that the killing was absorbed by their prior rebellion conviction; the Court held that the killing was not absorbed because it was inspired by personal motive and was not included in the rebellion information.
• Double Jeopardy (Constitutional Law) — The Court implicitly addressed the appellants' claim of double jeopardy, holding that their prior prosecution for rebellion did not bar the present murder prosecution because the acts charged were not included in the rebellion information.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concurred.