PEOPLE vs.

OANIS

Facts:

The chief of police Oanis together with Galanta was mandated to find a notorious criminal Anselmo
Balagtas. Through a telegram the mayor wants the victim dead or alive and was shown by a picture of
Balagtas in the newspaper. The two learned that Balagtas was living in Nueva Ecija with Irene. When the
group arrived at Irene's house, Oanis inquired to Mallare the location of Irene's room. She pointed it out
and said that Irene was sleeping with his paramour.

The defendants went to the room and saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door, by then the
defendants simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers without
having made previously any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. It turned out later that the person
killed was not Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour.

The trial court refused to believe the defendants because their testimoniez are materially contradictory.

Issue:
Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest
performance of their official duties?

Ruling:
No, Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. It applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness. However in this case the man was sleeping with his back facing
the defendants. They could have check whether it is Balagtas or not.

As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia. The defendants did not act in fulfillment 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 no chances, they have exceeded in the
fulfillment of such 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.

US vs. BROBST

Facts:
Simeon Saldivar was discharged from his work with the accusations that he was a theft and warned him
to never go back to their site. However, few days after he went to the mining site to look for a job. The
defendant James Brobst saw him and ordered him to leave. When Saldivar did not follow the order, the
defendant walk towards him and struck a powerful blow with his closed fist on the left side, just over
the lower ribs. After being struck, Saldivar threw up his hands, staggered and without saying a word,
went away in the direction of his sister's house, which stood about 200 yards away, and died as he
reached the door of the house.
The trial court found the defendant guilty of the crime of homicide. The defendant "had no intention of
committing so grave an injury as that which he inflicted," and that he struck the blow "under such
powerful excitement as would naturally produce.

The defendant claims that he only push lightly the victim. There are also witnesses who stated that
Brobst pushed the victim with his palm open. However, the trial court find it unreliable because they
were meters apart when that happened.

Issue:
Whether or not Brobst is guilty of homicide even though he alleged that he had no intent to kill the
victim?

Ruling:

Yes.In the case at bar the evidence conclusively establishes the voluntary, intentional, and unlawful
infliction by the accused of a severe blow on the person of the deceased; and while it is true that the
accused does not appear to have intended to take the life of his victim, there can no doubt that in thus
striking the deceased, he intended to do him some injury and he is therefore, criminally responsible for
the natural, even if unexpected results of his act, under the provisions of Article 1 of the Penal Code.

PEOPLE vs. ALBUQUERQUE

Facts:
Gines Albuquerque is the father of Pilar who was a partial paralysis for some time, walks dragging one
leg and has lost control of the movement of his right arm. Due to his condition, their whole family
depended on her daughter for support.

Pilar engaged in a love affair with Manuel Osma. After sometime she got pregnant without the
knowledge of her father Her family only knew it when she got home with the baby. The father wanted
Manuel to marry and support his daughter but the latter did not comply. One day the father went to the
office of Manuel to talk about it but when Manuel refused to grant his wishes, the father get his
penknife and wanted to threat him but due to his condition the knife struck in the neck of the victim
which causes his death.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendant is liable?

Ruling:
Yes. The trial court found that the appellant did not intend to cause so grave an injury as the death of
the deceased. We find that his conclusion is supported by the evidence. He only wanted to inflict a
wound that would leave a permanent scar on the face of the deceased but never intended to kill him.

Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to cause so grave an injury as the death of
the deceased as well as those of his having voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities, and acted
under the influence of passion and obfuscation, should be taken into consideration in favor of the
appellant.