People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Z.

Oanis
G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943
Moran, J.

Facts:
On December 24, 1938, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Provincial Inspector of Cabanutan,
received instruction to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal, and escapee, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive. The same instruction was given to the chief of police
Oanis, who knew Irene, the paramour of Balagtas. Upon the arrival in Irene’s whereabouts,
Oanis approached Brigida Mallare and asked where Irene’s room was. Defendants, Oanis and
Galanta, 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, 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, Serapio Tecson. Consequently, Oanis and
Galanta were, after due trial by the lower court, guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence
and were sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and six months to two
years and two months of prison correccional.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendants, Oanis and Galanta, are guilty of the crime of murder

Ruling:
The Court held that defendants are guilty of the crime of murder. The defendants relied on the
case of U.S. vs. Ah Chong to support their theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of
fact. However, the maxim ignorantia facti excusat only applies when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness. In the instant case, the person in the room being then asleep,
defendants 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, as the victim was unarmed. This is the only legitimate course of action for defendants to
follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight
but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.
As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder. Through the
defendants’ desire to take no chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of their performance
of duty by killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from him
and without any previous inquiry as to his identity. The Court rendered its judgment, declaring
the defendants guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstances.
 People of the Philippines vs. Freddie Lizada
G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 
Callejo, Sr., J. 

Facts:
Rose Orillosa had three children and one of them was Analia, who was the victim. In 1994, Rose
met the accused-appellant, wherein they eventually decided to live together. Whenever Rose was
out of the house, Analia and Rossel, her sibling, would take turns to tend the video shop as their
business. 
Sometime in 1996, Analia was in her room when accused-appellant entered and laid on top of
her to take off her shirt and underwear. He proceeded to insert his finger in her vagina then, later
on, inserted his penis. Analia felt a sticky substance coming out of his penis then pain in her
vagina afterward. The accused removed himself on top of Analia then threatened to kill her if he
was exposed. 
Consequently, the same happened in August 1997, the accused entered Analia’s room then
placed himself on top of her and captured her legs and arms. He proceeded to insert his finger
into Analia’s vagina then left the room after he was finished. The sexual abuse happened two
times a week from 1996 to 1998. 
In November 1998, Analia went to her room after studying when the accused-appellant also went
inside Analia’s room. Then again, the accused placed himself on top of her and touched her
breasts. Analia struggled to free herself as the accused-appellant removed her panty to touch her
vagina. Momentarily, he inserted his penis into her organ then ejaculated afterward. When
Rossel suddenly passed by Analia’s room, the accused dismounted from her. 
After a heated argument between the accused and Analia occurred, Rose and Analia left the
house. Analia then told her mother that the accused had been touching her. The two proceeded to
file an Affidavit-Complaint to the Police District and submitted herself to genitalia examination.
The trial court rendered its judgment finding that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of four counts of rape and is meted of the death penalty in each count. 

Issue: 
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape

Ruling:
The Court ruled that the accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape. Pursuant to Article 6 of
the Revised Penal Code, it states that there is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. The elements of an attempted felony include the following: (1) The
offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; (2) He does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; (3) The offender's act be not
stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; (4) The non-performance of all acts of execution
was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
The Supreme Court affirmed the facts given by the prosecution, finding that the accused-
appellant intended to have carnal knowledge of private complainant. The accused-appellant had
commenced the execution of rape, which if not for the spontaneous desistance, will ripen into the
crime of rape. Even though the accused-appellant desisted from executing the act, his desistance,
however, was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so because of a sudden arrival of Rossel.
Hence, the accused-appellant is guilty of attempted and is hereby meted an indeterminate penalty
of from six years of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum to ten years of
prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.