People vs. Oanis

Oanis, 74 Phil.
257
G.R. No.L-47722 July 27, 1943
MORAN, J.
Lesson applicable: mitigating circumstances
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.
 The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial
Inspector.
 Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an 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.
 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.
ISSUE: W/N they may, upon such fact, be held responsible for the death thus caused to Tecson
HELD: appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance
YES.
 ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness
 appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. 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.
 "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."
 a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence
in making an arrest
 The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and
not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
 2 requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one:
1. offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right-present
2. 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
 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.
Labels: 1943, Case Digest, crim law 1, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, mitigating
circumstances, People v. Oanis
Case Digest: PEOPLE v.

OANIS, GALANTA
27 OCTOBER 2017FINDING DARA
PEOPLE v. OANIS, GALANTA
G.R. No. L-47722, 27 July 1943
MORAN, J.:

FACTS:
Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal of Philippine Constabulary Alberto Galanta were
instructed to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They were informed that Balagtas is with Irene Requinea
at that time.
When they arrived at Requinea’s house, Oanis approached and asked Brigida Mallare where
Irene’s room was. Mallare indicated the place and upon further inquiry also said that Requinea
was sleeping with her paramour. Defendants then went to the said room, and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their
revolvers.
It turned out later that the person shot and killed was a peaceful and innocent citizen named
Serapio Tecson.
Accordingly, the Lower Court (LC) charged and found the accused guilty 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 prison correccional and to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000. However, defendants appealed
separately from this judgment claiming different versions of the tragedy ― each one blaming the
other.

ISSUE:
1. WHETHER OR NOT defendants incur no criminal liability due to innocent mistake of
fact in the honest performance of their official duties.
2. WHETHER OR NOT the acts committed by the defendants be considered as criminal
negligence and, being an act in the fulfillment of a duty, is a justifying circumstance to
exempt the defendants from criminal liability.
ADVERTISEMENT
REPORT THIS AD
RULING:
1. NO, the theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact is not a valid defense
for the Oanis and Galanta.
As per the case U.S. v. Ah Chong, the maxim ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the
mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. There is an innocent mistake of fact
committed without any fault or carelessness if the accused, 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. In addition, Section 2 (2), Rule 109 of the Rules of Court reads, “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.”
Here, Oanis and Galanta found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to
immediate action. Given Tecson 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. Thus, the defendants have no justification for
killing, be it Balagtas or Tecson, when in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or in fact no
resistance can be offered, as when he is asleep.
2. NO, the crime committed by defendants is not merely criminal negligence.

As once held by the Supreme Court (SC), a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence (People v. Nanquil; People v. Bindor), and
where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot
be considered as reckless imprudence (People vs. Gona) to support a plea of mitigated liability.
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 case at bar, only the first requisite is present. The second requisite is wanting for the crime
by them committed is not the necessary consequence 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. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the appellants are held guilty of murder,
and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision
correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to
pay the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, with costs.

People vs. Oanis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Oanis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Oanis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oanis, 74 Phil.

Lesson applicable: mitigating circumstances

Case Digest: PEOPLE v.

2. NO, the crime committed by defendants is not merely criminal negligence.

You might also like