People v. Bernadez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the evening of May 16, 1943, Amadeo Bernadez, a 3rd Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, ordered Private Eustaquio Altamarino to bring Gabriel Ricablanca, who was detained in the municipal jail, to a specific location on the beach where a pit had been dug. Altamarino complied, bringing Ricablanca, whose hands were tied behind his back, to the designated spot. Bernadez then shot Ricablanca six times in the nape and back from a distance of three paces using a .38-caliber revolver. After emptying his firearm, Bernadez instructed Francisco It-it to "finish" Ricablanca, and It-it fired a shot at the victim's back. Following Ricablanca's death, Bernadez ordered that he be buried in the pit. Procedural History: Amadeo Bernadez and Francisco It-it were charged with murder for the death of Gabriel Ricablanca. After trial, Francisco It-it was acquitted. However, Bernadez was found guilty and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law, ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs. Bernadez appealed this judgment. The Appeal: Appellant Amadeo Bernadez admitted to shooting Ricablanca to death but invoked the defense of having merely complied with the order of his superior officer, as evidenced by a memorandum (Exhibit 1), and invoked Article 11, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code. Exhibit 1 purported to be a memorandum from C.N. Bernadez, 1st Lieutenant Infantry and Executive Officer, ordering the immediate execution of a death penalty judgment against Gabriel Ricablanca, purportedly rendered on the same date as the memorandum.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant, Amadeo Bernadez, can validly invoke the defense of having acted under the order of a superior officer, pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, for the killing of Gabriel Ricablanca. Whether the memorandum order (Exhibit 1) presented by the appellant was genuine and constituted a lawful order justifying the execution of Gabriel Ricablanca. Whether the appellant acted with malice and criminal intent in the killing of Gabriel Ricablanca.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding Amadeo Bernadez guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the defense of acting under orders was untenable because the order itself was illegal, and there was strong evidence suggesting the order was forged by the appellant to shield himself from criminal responsibility. The conviction was upheld, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of invoking the defense of acting under orders (Article 11, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code): The appellant's defense that he was merely complying with the order of his superior officer is untenable. Article 11, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for whose unlawful exercise of his authority he is not responsible. However, this exemption is not absolute. The order must be lawful. In this case, the evidence presented strongly indicated that the purported memorandum order (Exhibit 1) was not genuine. The signature "C.N. Bernardez" on the memorandum showed marked differences compared to his admitted genuine signatures. Furthermore, there was no record of Ricablanca's arrest, no investigation ordered by headquarters, and no report made by Lieutenant Cirilo N. Bernardez regarding any investigation. The appellant also failed to submit the required report on the execution, which is a significant omission if he had indeed received and acted upon a lawful order. The testimony of superior officers confirmed that no judgment was rendered against Ricablanca and no order for his execution was issued. Therefore, the order to execute Ricablanca was illegal, and the appellant could not invoke Article 11, paragraph 6 to exempt himself from criminal responsibility. On the genuineness of the memorandum order (Exhibit 1) and the lawfulness of the execution: The memorandum order, Exhibit 1, which purportedly authorized the execution of Gabriel Ricablanca, was found to be forged. A comparison of the signature "C.N. Bernardez" on Exhibit 1 with his genuine signatures revealed significant discrepancies in the strokes, the slant of letters, and the spacing between letters. The testimony of Marino Jobillo, the battalion commander, and Hermenegildo Mercado, the commanding officer of the East Negros sector, unequivocally stated that no judgment had been rendered against Ricablanca and no order had been issued for his execution. Moreover, the established procedure for arrested individuals was to be turned over to headquarters with a report, a procedure that was not followed. The absence of any official record or report regarding Ricablanca's trial or execution further supports the conclusion that the order was fabricated. The fact that Lieutenant Cirilo N. Bernadez, the purported signatory, was killed in December 1943, before the trial, might have been exploited by the appellant to shift responsibility, but the evidence of forgery was compelling. Thus, the execution of Ricablanca was unauthorized and unlawful. On the appellant's malice and criminal intent: The appellant's conduct before and after the shooting demonstrates clear malice and criminal intent. While it is argued that killing in the presence of witnesses might negate intent, the witnesses in this case were subordinates who were compelled to participate in the unlawful act, including digging the pit, transporting the victim, and burying him. More importantly, after shooting Ricablanca, the appellant explicitly warned the bystanders not to reveal the incident and to claim it was merely target practice if questioned. This act of instructing witnesses to conceal the truth and fabricate a story strongly indicates a consciousness of guilt and a deliberate intent to cover up an unlawful killing. The appellant's actions were not those of someone acting in good faith under a lawful order, but rather those of someone committing a crime and attempting to evade responsibility. The context of the "troubled condition" in Guihulngan and the perceived "ascendancy" of the Bernadez brothers in the locality, coupled with the alleged incident involving Eugenio Bernadez shooting Ricablanca for disobeying an order, suggests a pattern of using authority and force unlawfully, a mentality seemingly shared by the appellant.
Main Doctrine
The defense of acting under the order of a superior officer, as provided in Article 11, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, is not a valid justification for committing a crime if the order is unlawful or if the subordinate has knowledge of its illegality. In this case, the appellant's claim of merely complying with an order was debunked by evidence showing the order was forged and the execution of the victim was unauthorized, thus he remained criminally liable for murder.