G.R. NO.

L-47722 JULY 27, 1943

EN BANC

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

VS

ANTONIO Z. ONAIS & ALBERTO GALANTA

MORAN, J.:

FACTS:

Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, was
informed through a telegram from Major Guido that notorious criminal and escaped convict Anselmo
Balagtas is with Irene Requinea at that time. Afterwards, Captain Monsod instructed Chief of Police
Oanis and Corporal of Philippine Constabulary Alberto Galanta, to get Anselmo Balagtas dead or alive.

The Provincial Inspector divided into the party into 2 groups with defendants Onais, Galanta and
Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street leading to the house where Irene supposedly lives. When this
group arrived at Irene’s house, Oanis Approached one Brigada Mallare, and asked her where Irene’s
room was. Brigada indicated the place and upon further inquiry also said that Irene was sleeping with
her paramour. The Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, 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 person shot and killed was not the
notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson. After
hearing several testimonies and reviewing the evidences, the Lower Court held and so declared them
guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendants incur no criminal liability due to the innocent mistake of fact,
error en personae, in the honest performance of their official duties

RULING:

NO, the theory of non-liability by reasons of mistake of fact is not a valid defense for this case.
The maxim Ignorancia facti excusat, only applies when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness.

In the case of US vs. Ah chong, 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 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. Here, the appellants, found no 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.