People v. Antonio Z Oanis and Alberto Galanta – GR No.

L-47722

Facts:

 Captain Godofredo Monsod (Provincial Inspector of Cabanatuan) was instructed to arrest

Balagtas, a notorious criminal, and, if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. The same
instruction was given to the Chief of Police Oanis who knew the whereabouts of Irene, the
paramour of Balagtas.
 Upon arriving at Irene’s house, Oanis approached Mallare and asked her where Irene’s room
was. Mallare indicated the place and upon further inquiry also said that Irene was sleeping with
her paramour.
 Defendants Oanis and Galanta (Corporal of the Philippine Constabulary) then went to the room
of Irene, and upon 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.
 It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent
citizen named Tecson, Irene’s paramour.
 Consequently, Oanis and Galanta were charged with the crime of murder.
 The trial court found appellants guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
 It is contended that, as appellants acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance
of their official duties, both of them believing that Tecson was Balagtas, they incur no criminal
liability. Appellants rely on the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong.

Issue: Whether or not appellants are criminally liable for the death of Tecson.

Decision: Yes, Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable for the death of Tecon.

In accordance with the case of US vs Ah Chong, an innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault
or carelessness and further detailed as follows “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 the the case of
Oanis and Galanta, the suspects found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to
immediate action i.e they have ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves. Therefore, Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable.

Additional note: The Supreme court modified the penalty to consider mitigating circumstance (under
Article 11, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code). Only one (first requisites) of the 2 requisites to justify the
act as one in fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office is present. (1) Offender acted in
the performance of a duty; (2) injury or offense committed be necessary consequence to the due
performance of such duty. Wanting for the crime by them committed is not the necessary consequence
of a due performance. 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.
People v. Esmael Gervero, Florencio Arbolonio, Danilo Castigador, Celso Solomon, and Eduardo Banes

Facts:

 Victims Hernando Villegas (Hernando), Jose Villegas (Jose), and Benito Bausug, Jr. (Bausug) were
members of the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO).
 Accused were members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), and were
carrying firearms.
 They approached the victims and asked money from Hernando, and the latter gave them Php
20. One of the accused (Bañes) remarked, “Is that the only amount you can give when you just
received money from your wife?” The other accused (Castigador), took the money and said “You
just watch out.”
 Later in the evening, a burst of gunfire from where the victims were walking was heard. A shout
was heard, “This is Hernando, a CVO!” and someone replied, “Birahi na! (Shoot now!)”.
 The accused interposed the defense of mistake of fact, claiming that they thought the victims
were members of the New People’s Army (NPA). The accused were given oral instructions by
Senior Inspector Benigno Baldevinos to conduct a tactical patrol and combat operations against
the NPA. They were told to use the password “Simoy”, to which the response should be “Amoy”.

Issue: Whether mistake of fact finds application in the case.

Ruling: No, mistake of fact finds no application in this case.

As early as in the case of People v. Oanis and Galanta, the Court has ruled that mistake of fact applies
only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the case, the following
circumstances negate the claim of mistake of fact:

1. No reason for the accused not to recognize the victims

2. Even if Hernando identified himself, the accused continued firing instead of verifying the identity
of the victims
3. The accused should have recognized the victim when they approached the bodies, instead,
accused sprayed the victims with bullets.
4. When the accused reported to the barangay captain, they’ve mentioned that the victims did not
fire at the accused
5. There are no way victims could have known the safe words “Amoy” which must be uttered in
response to “Simoy” so that they would not be identified as NPA.

The above instead pointed to a concerted action to eliminate the victims. Therefore. Mistake of fact
finds no application in the case.

Additional notes:

 It could not even be said that the accused acted in the performance of their duty. So none of the
2 requisites laid down in People v. Oanis is present. The evidence speaks in no uncertain terms
that the accused, instead of fulfilling their sworn duty to protect the public in accordance with
law, allowed their personal grudges and thirst for vengeance to prevail and killed Jose,
 Hernando, and Benito in cold blood. Therefore, there is no justifying circumstance of fulfillment
of duty.

 The essence of treachery under Article 248 of the RPC is that the attack comes without a
warning and in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unanned, and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape." In the case, the victims, who were on their
way to attend a wake and happily conversing with one another, were caught off guard when all
of a sudden, they were met with multiple gunshots. In such a rapid motion, accused-appellants
shot the victims, affording the latter no opportunity to defend themselves or fight back. The
suddenness of the attack and the lack of opportunity for the victims to defend themselves
constituted treachery. Therefore, the accused are guilty of murder qualified by treachery.