G.R. No. L-572. June 08, 1948
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AMADEO BERNADEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AMADEO BERNADEZ ET AL., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
Bernadez, 3rd Lieutenant of Philippine Army, ordered Eustaquio Altamarino, a
private under his command, to bring Gabriel Ricablanca, who was detained in the
municipal jail of Guihulngan, Oriental Negros, to a certain place in the beach
where a pit had been dug. In obedience to the order, AItamarino brought Gabriel
Ricablanca, tied by the Hands on his back, to the place and there the latter was
shot six times at the nape and the back by Amadeo Bernadez at a distance of
three paces (pp. 22, 46, 47, 51, 74, t. s. n.). After emptying his .38-caliber
revolver, he told Francisco It-it to “finish” Ricablanca, and Francisco fired a
shot at the latter’s back. After Ricablanca had fallen down dead, Amadeo
Bernadez ordered that lie be buried in the pit.
For the death of Ricablanca Amadeo Bernadez and Francisco It-it were charged
with murder. After trial Francisco It-it, was acquitted of the charge, but
Bernadez was found guilty and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua,
with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs. He appeals.
Appellant admits that he shot Ricablanca to death (pp. 73-74, t. s. n.), but
pleads in defense that he merely complied with the order of his superior
officer, as shown in Exhibit 1, and invokes in his favor article 11, paragraph
6, of the Revised Penal Code. Exhibit 1 purports to be a memorandum signed by C.N. Bernadez, 1st Lieutenant Infantry, Executive Officer, addressed to the
appellant, ordering the latter to execute immediately a judgment imposing death
penalty imposing death penalty upon Gabriel Ricablanca rendered on the same date
appearing in the memorandum order.
Appellant’s defense is untenable, because by comparing the signature “C.N.
Bernadez” in the memorandum order, Exhibit 1, with the admittedly genuine
signatures “C.N. Bernadez” in Exhibits A to K, marked differences in the
strokes are noticeable, especially in the capital letter “C” at the beginning,
and in the small letter “z” at the end, of the signatures. ,The position of the
letters in the genuine signatures is almost vertical, whereas in the questioned
signature the letters slant toward the right. In the questioned signature the
letters are quite apart one from the other, whereas in the genuine signatures
they are close to each other. There was no report on the arrest of Ricablanca;
nor was there an investigation of him ordered by the headquarters; neither was
there a report by Lieutenant Cirilo N. Bernadez on the investigation of
Ricablanca (p. 85, t. s. n.). There was no report made by the appellant to his
superior officer on the execution of Ricablanca as it was the requirement in
such cases (pp. 87, 97-99, t. s. n.). And it is significant that after shooting
the victim, the appellant told the onlookers or bystanders not to reveal it and
to say, if asked, that it was merely a target practice (pp. 12-13, t. s. n.). If
the appellant acted aboveboard, as he pretends, he would not have cautioned them
not to reveal the shooting of Ricablanca which caused his death.
Marino Jobillo, the batallion commander of the executive officer who signed
the memorandum order Exhibit 1, testifies that no judgment had been rendered
against Ricablanca and no order had been issued by him authorizing his execution
(pp. 91-92, t. s. n.). Hermenegildo Mercado, the commanding officer of the Whole
East Negros sector (USAFFE) , testifies that his orders were to the effect that
all persons arrested should be turned over to tiie headquarters and Report
thereon should be made; that Ricablanca had never been brought to the
headquarters and no report regarding him had been made; and that he did not
appoint any court martial to try Ricablanca and did not order his execution (pp.
97-99, t.s.n.). Cresencio Bernadez, testifying for his first degree cousin, the
appellant (p. 70, t. s. n.), says that he was the officer of the day on the 16th
of May, 1943 (p. 63, t. s. n.), and that he did not know that Ricablanca was
tried on that day (pp. 68-69, t. s. n.).
All these facts show that the execution of Ricablanca was unauthorised and
unlawful. By the memorandum order, Exhibit 1, an attempt is made to shift the
responsibility to the late Cirilo N. Bernadez, the executive officer who
purportedly signed it. He was killed in December 1943 (p. 69, t. s. n.). The
order to execute Ricablanca being illegal, the provisions of article 11,
paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code can not be invoked to exempt the
appellant from criminal responsibility arising from the killing of
Ricablanca.
It is argued that if the intention of the appellant was just to kill
Ricablanca, he would not have done so in the presence of some witnesses. But the
latter were appellant’s subordinates who had dug the pit, brought the victim to
the beach, and buried him in the pit. Counsel overlooks appellant’s conduct
after shooting the deceased. He warned those who had witnessed the incident not
to reveal what they had seen and to say, if asked, that it was merely a target
practice. As stated elsewhere in this opinion, such conduct shows that the
appellant acted with malice and criminal intent.
It is urged that even if the memorandum order were forged, still the
appellant cannot be held responsible for the death of Ricablanca, because it has
‘not been shown that the appellant is the one who had forged it. In other words,
it is contended that even if the memorandum order were forged, still the
appellant acted in good faith when he complied with it. From the fact that the
memorandum order is forged; that no trial or proceedings had taken place where a
judgment against Ricablanca could or might have been rendered; that the superior
officers of the appellant had not ordered Ricablanca’s execution; that no report
on said execution had been made, it may logically be inferred that the appellant
forged it or caused it to be forged to be relieved from criminal responsibility
arising from the killing of Ricablanca. Appellant’s failure to submit a report
on the compliance with the order of execution is a strong proof that he did not
receive such memorandum order. At the time of the killing of Ricablanca,
Guihulngan was in a troubled condition, and from the evidence it may be drawn
that the Bernadez brothers were in ascendancy in the locality on account of the
fact that at least two brothers and some close relatives were in the Army (p.
17, t. s. n.). And suspecting Ricablanca of some wrongdoing, the brother of the
appellant, Eugenio Bernadez, called him, but as Ricablanca, instead of heeding
the call, ran away, Eugenio Bernadez shot him for disobeying his order (pp.
13-14, t. s. n.). There is no doubt that Eugenio Bernadez was quick in making
use of his gun because of the belief that their power would last for some time
and that the wrong he might commit could be explained or justified by him. Such
was also the mental attitude of the appellant when he shot Ricablanca to
death.
There being no modifying circumstances and the penalty imposed by the trial
court being in accordance With article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the
judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Parás, Actg. C. J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon,
Briones, and Tuason, JJ., concur.
PARÁS: Acting Chief
Justice. I hereby certify that Mr. Chief Justice Moran voted for affirmance of
the judgment appealed from.