THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO Z.

OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA

GR. No. L-47722, 27 July 1943, EN BANC (Moran, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

The appellants did however contended that their actions was rather a maitake of fact.
However the maxim “Ignorantia facti Excusat”(Ignorance of Fact is an Excuse), only applies when
a mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. Though upon the investigation of the case, the
appellants did not carefully assessed the identity of the victim and already assumed it was Balagtas
then the appellants deliberately shot Tecson on the back while he was asleep. 

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 second requisite was not present in the
indecent because the appellants were instructed only to resort on capturing Balagtas dead or alive
only when Balagtas offered resistance to the appellants. But the appellants acted rashly on shooting
a man deliberatley on sight who was only sleeping and with the fact that the said appellants did not
carefully assessed that if the person they saw sleeping was indeed Balagtas.

FACTS 
On December 24, 1938 in the afternoon, The Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, Captain Godofredo Monsod received a telegram from Major Guido stating
"Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get
him dead or alive." 

Captain Godofredo Monsod ordered his men including defendant Corporal Galanta to arrest
Balagtas and if overpowered capturing the said convict dead or alive would be necessary. Defendant
Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis also had the same instruction to be executed.

Oanis and Galanta arrived at the place of Irene, the former asked Brigida Mallare where was
the room of Irene and Mallare indicated where the room of Irene is and also stating that Irene is
sleeping with her paramour. 

Oanis and Galanta went to the room of Irene and seeing man sleeping on his back towards
the door where the accused were. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously and successively shot the
sleeping man with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. 

At the end on the scene, the sleeping man died from multiple gunshots and was later
identified to be Serapio Tecson and not Anselmo Balagtas. 

ISSUE 
Are the appellants criminally liable for the death of Tecson?

RULING
 YES. The appellants are found guilty by the lower court of homicide through reckless
imprudence. Then the judgment is modified and appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with
the mitigating circumstance.

The crime committed by Oanis and Galanta is not merely criminal negligence, but rather the
killing was clearly being intentional and not accidental. Due to the fact that the two mentioned
previously shot Tecson while the said victim was still asleep. 

In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply
the incident of another act performed without malice.

The appellants did however contended that their actions was rather a mistake of fact.
However the maxim “Ignorantia facti Excusat”(Ignorance of Fact is an Excuse), only applies when
a mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. Though upon the investigation of the case, the
appellants did not carefully assessed the identity of the victim and already assumed it was Balagtas
then the appellants deliberately shot Tecson on the back while he was asleep. 

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 second requisite was not present in the
indecent because the appellants were instructed only to resort on capturing Balagtas dead or alive
only when Balagtas offered resistance to the appellants. But the appellants acted rashly on shooting a
man deliberately on sight who was only sleeping and with the fact that the said appellants did not
carefully assessed that if the person they saw sleeping was indeed Balagtas.

-P.Sigs