THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO Z.

OANIS and
ALBERTO GALANTA, defendant-appellant
GR No. L-47722
July 27, 1943

FACTS
In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, defendants Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto
Galanta were tasked by their superior officers to arrest escaped convict Anselmo
Balagtas, who was alleged to be with bailarina Irene in Cabanatuan, dead or alive. The
defendants went in search of Irene, and, upon locating her house, asked one Brigida
Mallare where said Irene’s room was. Brigida indicated the place and upon further
inquiry said that said Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Defendants then went to
the specified location, and, 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. It turned out later that the man they shot and killed was not the criminal
Anselmo Balagtas but an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour.
DECISION – COURT OF ORIGIN
The lower court held that the defendants were guilty of the crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence.
ISSUE
W/N negligence constitutes mistake of fact
DECISION – APPELLATE COURT
The Supreme Court held that the crime committed by the defendants is murder though
specially mitigated by circumstance. The appellants rely on the case of Ah Chong (15
Phil 488) to exempt them from liability through mistake of fact, but the Court stated that
this can only apply if the mistake is done without fault or carelessness. In the case at
hand, the appellants found no circumstances whatsoever to press them towards
immediate action, as the person was asleep, giving them ample time and opportunity to
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could have even made a
bloodless arrest had reasonable measures been taken, as Irene Requinea said that the
victim was unarmed. The Court writes that this is the only legitimate course of action the
appellants should have taken as there were no instructions for them to shoot Balagtas
on sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is
offered by him. The Court held that the crime committed by appellants is not merely
criminal negligence as it is intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the
injury must be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed
without malice (People v Sara, 55 Phil 939). As once held in the Court, a deliberate
intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence (People v Gona, 54 Phil 605) to support a plea of mitigated liability.