G.R. No. L-4409 July 14, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE BERNAL, HERMENEGILDO SALVORO and VICENTE ROLEDA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Jose Bernal, a member of the military police, had an altercation with Alfonso Pilones, during which Bernal was punched. Later that evening, Pilones inflicted superficial bolo wounds on Bernal. Bernal reported the incident to his superiors. Captain Trinidad ordered Sgt. Ricardo Benting to organize a patrol to find and investigate Pilones. Benting, with Privates Vicente Roleda, Hermenegildo Salvoro, Lomod, and Bernal (acting as a guide), went to Pilones’ house and later found him at his brother-in-law Jose Rosal’s house. Benting informed Pilones he was wanted at headquarters. Rosal accompanied them. On the way to the camp, very near a guard post, Pilones was shot and killed by appellant Roleda. The defense claimed Pilones was shot after he grabbed Salvoro’s rifle, struggled for it, and ran away, prompting Benting to order Roleda to fire. The prosecution, through witness Jose Rosal, claimed Pilones was shot in cold blood by order of Sgt. Benting, who declared Pilones was a bandit and ordered him killed. The trial court convicted Bernal, Salvoro, and Roleda of murder, finding the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, questioning the existence of obfuscation.

ISSUE

1. Whether conspiracy existed among all the accused to hold Bernal and Salvoro liable for murder.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was correctly appreciated in favor of appellant Roleda.

RULING

1. No, conspiracy was not proven as to appellants Jose Bernal and Hermenegildo Salvoro. The Supreme Court found no proof of conspiracy. Bernal accompanied the patrol only as a guide and was unarmed, having reported the matter to authorities upon advice. Salvoro joined the patrol by order and was merely present during the shooting without taking part. The prosecution failed to establish a logical relation between the commission of the crime and Bernal and Salvoro, or any overt acts in pursuance of a common criminal design. Therefore, Bernal and Salvoro are acquitted.
2. Yes, the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was correctly appreciated in favor of appellant Vicente Roleda. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court. Considering that Sgt. Benting, during the walk, led his companions to believe Pilones had killed a barrio lieutenant and a member of the military police (a comrade in arms), this may have aroused resentment in Roleda, impelling him to follow Benting’s order. This, coupled with Roleda’s position as a subordinate under Benting’s immediate command and control while on patrol, constituted sufficient obfuscation. The decision of the trial court convicting Roleda is affirmed, with the penalty imposed remaining unchanged.