People v.

Oanis
G.R. No. 47722
Justice Moran
27 July 1943

FACTS:
Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan,
Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of the following tenor: "Information
received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get
him dead or alive." Captain Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked
that he be given four men. They were instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if overpowered,
to follow the instruction contained in the telegram. The same instruction was given to
the chief of police Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. When the
group of Oanis & Galanta arrived at Irene's house, Oanis approached one Brigida
Mallare, nd asked her where Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the place and upon
further inquiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was
sleeping in the same room. Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of
Irene, and seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were,
simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers.
Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at
the door where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by
the entire scene. Irene fainted; it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not
the notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named
Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Oanis and Galanta is criminally liable for the death of Tecson

RULING:
Yes, Oanis and Galanta is criminally liable for the death of Tecson. Ignorantia
facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness.
In our case, the person in the room being then asleep, Oanis & Galanta had ample time
and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even
effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the
victim was unarmed. A mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete
justifying circumstance defined in article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code.
According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in
the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are two
requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the
offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and ( b)
that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The judgement is
modified and hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstances
mentioned.