[74 Phil 257, G.R. No.

47722 July 27, 1943]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

Vs.

ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants.

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.
Hence, the present appeal. It is contended that, as appellants acted in innocent
mistake of fact in the honest performance of their official duties, both 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 Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable for the death of
Tecson?

Ruling:

Yes, both Oanis and Galanta were criminally liable for the death of Tecson.

Under the law, “Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from which he intended."
Appellants’ invocation of honest mistake of fact is misplaced. In the instant case,
appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to
immediate action. The person in the room 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, as the victim was unarmed.

This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for appellants 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. Thus, the crime committed by defendants was not merely criminal
negligence, it was intentional and not accidental.