People vs. Oanis Facts On December 24, 1938, Capt.

Monson received a telegram tasking him and his department to capture, dead or alive, an escaped convict named Anselmo Balagtas. Defendants in the case, Oanis and Galanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the Philippine Constalulary, were tasked to taking the route to Rizal Street leading to the house where a contact of Balagtas named Irene lived. Upon arriving at Irenes house, Oanis approached Brigada Mallare, and asked her where Irenes room was. The latter told them that she had been sleeping with her paramour. Oanis and Galanta then went to Irenes room and saw a man, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their revolvers. Irene fainted upon seeing her paramour wounded and the continued shooting by the officers. However, the man they killed was not Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful citizen named Serapio Tecson. Galanta contends, however, that Brigada had indicated that it was Balagtas who was sleeping with Irene. Upon opening the curtain covering the door, Oanis said If you are Balagtas, stand up with Oanis firing at Tecson when he and Irene sat on the bed. Galanta fired at Tecson after Oanis shouted That is Balagtas. In contrast, Oanis states that Galanta had fired at Tecson while the latter was still lying on the bed and continued to do so until he had exhausted his bullets. It was only after that Oanis shot at Balagtas. Issues Are homicide? Held the officers guilty of

Both are guilty through specially circumstances

of

murder mitigated

Rationalization The testimonies given by both contradict one another in some kind of effort to be less guilty than the other. However, the three testimonies given (Irene contributed most of the facts), are consistent that Tecson was shot to death while sleeping in bed, and did so without making any reasonable inquiry to his identity. Officers are not justified in their use of force considering that Tecson was asleep, and they could have taken the time to ascertain his identity or arrest him. Notoriety of a criminal does not make the life of a criminal a mere trifle in the hands of the officers of the law, nor does it make them innocent of mistake. However, article 11, No. 5 of the RPC provides a justifying circumstance in the present case, which is incomplete; the officers would not incite criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty and if the offense committed was of necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or office. The latter condition is not present so article 69 of the RPC applies, lowering the penalty by one or two degrees than prescribed by law shall be imposed.