People Vs Oanis SCRA
People Vs Oanis SCRA
People Vs Oanis SCRA
——————
258
that the attack was real, that the pistol level at his head was loaded
and that his life and property were in imminent danger at the hands
of the aggressor. In these instances, there is an innocent mistake of
fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the accused,
having no time or opportunity to make a further injury, and being
pressed by circumstances to act immediately, had no alternative but
to take the fact as they then appeared to him; and such facts justified
his act of killing. In the case, appeliants, unlike the accused in the
instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would
press them to immediate action. The person in the room being then
asleep, appeliants 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,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 2/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 3/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
259
STANCE DEFINED IN "ARTICLE 11, NO. 5, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE.—As
the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder
with the qualifying circumstance of alevosía. There is, however, 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 fulfilment 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 dutv or the
lawful exercise of sjich right or office. In the instant case, onlv the
first requisite is present—appellants have acted in the performance of
a dutv. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them com-
mitted be the necessarv conreouence of of a due performance of their
duty. Their duty was to arrest. Balagtas, or to get him dead or alive if
resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered. But through
impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to take chances, they
have exceeded in the fulfilment of such dutv bv killing the person
whom they believed to be Balagtas without anv resistance from him
and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity. Accord-
ing to article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower bv one
or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be
imposed.
MORAN, J.:
Charged with the crime of murder of one Serapio
Tecson, the accused Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta,
chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the Philippine
Constabulary, respectively, were, after due trial, found
guilty by the lower court of homicide through reckless
imprudence and were sentenced each to an indeterminate
penalty of from one year and six months to two years and
two months of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P1,000. Defendants appealed separately from this
judgment.
In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, 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 named
Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain
Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked
that he be given four men. Defendant corporal Alberto
Galanta, and privates Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna
and D. Fernandez, upon order of their sergeant, reported at
the office of the Provincial Inspector where they were
shown a copy of the above-quoted telegram and a
newspaper clipping containing a picture of Balagtas. 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 chief
of police was asked whether he knew one Irene, a bailarina,
he answered that he knew one of loose morals of the same
name. Upon request of the Provincial Inspector, the chief of
police tried to locate some of his men to guide the
constabulary soldiers in ascertaining Balagtas'
whereabouts, and failing to see anyone of them he
voluntered to go with the party. The Provincial Inspector
divided the party into two groups with defendants Oanis
and Galanta, and private Fernandez taking the route to
Rizal street leading to the house where Irene was
supposedly living: When this group arrived at Irene's
house, Oanis approached one Brigida Mallare, who was
then strip-
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 5/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
260
ping banana stalks, and asked her where Irene's room was
Brigida indicated the place and upon further inquiry also
said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Brigida
trembling, immediately returned to her own room which
was very near that occupied by Irene and her paramour.
Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of
Irene, 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.
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. The Provincial
Inspector, informed of the killing, repaired to the scene and
when he asked as to who killed the deceased, Galanta,
referring to himself and to Oanis, answered: "We two, sir."
The corpse was thereafter brought to the provincial-
hospital and upon autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de Castro,
multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a .32 and a .45 caliber
revolvers were found on Tecson's body which caused his
death.
These are the facts as found by the trial court and fully
supported by the evidence, particularly by the testimony of
Irene Requinea. Appellants gave, however, a different
version of the tragedy. According to Appellant Galanta,
when he and chief of police Oanis arrived at the house, the
latter asked Brigida 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. Oanis went to the room thus
indicated and upon opening the curtain covering the door,
he said: "If you are Balagtas, stand up." Tecson, the
supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke up and as the former
was about to sit up in bed, Oanis fired at him. Wounded,
Tecson leaned towards the door, and Oanis receded and
shouted: "That is Balagtas." Galanta then fired at Tecson.
On the other hand, Oanis testified that, after he had
opened the curtain covering the door and after having said,
"if you are Balagtas stand up," Galanta at once fired at
Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, while the latter was still
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 6/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
261
assured that when Galanja shot Tecson, the latter was still
lying in bed. Thus corroborated, and considering that the
trial court had the opportunity to observe her demeanor on
the stand, we believe and so hold that no error was
committed in accepting her testimony and in rejecting the
exculpatory pretensions of the two appellants.
Furthermore, a careful examination of Irene's testimony
will show not only that her version of the tragedy is not
concocted but that it contains all indicia of veracity. In her
cross-examination, even misleading questions had been put
which were unsuccessful, the witness having stuck to the
truth in every detail of the occurrence. Under these
circumstances, we do not feel ourselves justified in
disturbing the findings of fact made by the trial court.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 7/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 16/17
7/6/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 074
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016bc7def4d68dd1c189003600fb002c009e/p/ASB808/?username=Guest 17/17