People vs.

Oanis
(G.R. No. 47722. July 27, 1943)

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Defendants-appellants: Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta
Ponente: J. Moran

FACTS:
Upon receiving a telegram from Major Guido ordering the arrest of Anselmo
Balagtas, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, asked that he be given four men, one of whom who
reported was defendant Alberto Galanta. The same instruction was given to
defendant Antonio Oanis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise
called by the Provincial Inspector. The Provincial Inspector divided the party
into two groups with defendants Oanis and Galanta taking the route leading to
the house of a bailarina named Irene, where Balagtas was believed to be
staying. Upon arriving, the group went to the Irene’s room and on 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. It turned out
later that the person shot and killed was not Balagtas but an innocent citizen
named Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the defendants are criminally liable for the death of Serapio
Tecson.
2) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance in case they are found criminally liable

RULING:
1) Yes. If a person acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance
of his official duties, then he incurs no criminal liability. Nonetheless, the
maxim ignorantia facti excusat, applies only when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness. In the instant case, the defendants found no
circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the
person in the room being then asleep would give them ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity. Moreover, they were instructed not to kill
Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if
resistance or aggression is offered by him. Thus, the crime committed by
defendants was not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional
and not accidental.

2) Yes. The Court held that the defendants committed the crime of murder with
the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, but may be entitled to an incomplete
justifying circumstance as provided in Article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal
Code. 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. In the instant case, only the first requisite is
present. Thus, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law in case the
crime committed is not wholly excusable, was imposed, entitling the
defendants to a privileged mitigating circumstance.