BAGUEC Criminal Law I
PEOPLE V. OANIS
G.R. No. L-47722 | July 27, 1943
MORAN, J.:
TOPIC: Error in personae
FACTS:
As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and co-
accused Corporal Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas,
a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or
alive, as indicated in a telegram received by the Constabulary Inspector of
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija in December 24, 1936. Prior to deployment, Oanis and
Galanta were shown a copy of the said telegram and a newspaper clipping containing
a picture of Balagtas for their reference.
The route to Rizal street led to house where Irene Requinea, a bailarina associated with
Balagtas, was supposedly living. Proceeding to the suspected house, a certain Brigida
Mallare was approached to ask of Irene’s room, which she indicated and upon inquiry
also said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.
Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went into Irene’s room and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously and successively fired at him
with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry
as to his identity. The victim turned out to be a peaceful and innocent citizen, Serapio
Tecson, Irene’s paramour. Upon autopsy, multiple gunshot wounds were found on
his body which caused his death. The defendants alleged and appealed that in the
honest performance of their official duties, they acted in innocent mistake of fact,
hence should incur no criminal liability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Chief of Police Oanis and Corporal Galanta may, upon true facts, be
held responsible for the death caused to Tecson.
HELD:
Appellants are hereby declared GUILTY OF MURDER with the mitigating
circumstance.
1. A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses
unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest. New Rules of Court, Rule 109,
1
BAGUEC Criminal Law I
Section 2 paragraph 2 provides: “No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be
used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention.” In apprehending even the most
notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when
the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying
to capture him that killing him would be justified.
2. The maxim ignorantia facti excusat, which supports the theory of non-liability by
reasons of honest mistake of fact, applies only when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness. Therefore, the appellants cannot rely on the case of
U.S. v. Ah Chong (15 Phil, 488), as the defendant therein made an effort to identify
and warn the feared intruder. In his particular circumstance, there was an innocent
mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness, and having no time or
opportunity to make a further inquiry and being pressed by circumstances to act
immediately, had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him,
and such facts justified his act of killing. The same is not the case with the
appellants herein.
3. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed by both the accused
was murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. The person in the room
being then asleep, appellants 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,
according to Requinea. Hence, the crime committed by the appellants is not merely
criminal negligence, as the killing was intentional and not accidental.
4. There are two (2) requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a
justifying one: (a) Offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right. — present; (b) Injury or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such
right or office. — not present.
It is through impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to take no chances that the
accused have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by killing the person whom
they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making any
previous inquiry as to his identity.
According to article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by 1 or 2 degrees
than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be imposed.
