People vs.

Oanis (1943)
G.R. No. 47722
July 27, 1943

FACTS:
Upon receiving a telegram from Major Guido ordering the arrest of Anselmo Balagtas,
Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva
Ecija, asked that he be given four men, one of whom who reported was defendant
Alberto Galanta. The same instruction was given to defendant Antonio Oanis, chief
of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. The
Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups with defendants Oanis and
Galanta taking the route leading to the house of a bailarina named Irene, where
Balagtas was believed to be staying. Upon arriving, the group went to the Irenes
room and on 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 Balagtas but
an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irenes paramour.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the defendants are criminally liable for the death of Serapio
Tecson.
2) Whether or not the defendants are entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance in case they are found criminally liable

HELD:
1) Yes. If a person acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance of
his official duties, then he incurs no criminal liability. Nonetheless, the maxim
ignorantia facti excusat, applies only when the mistake is committed without fault
or carelessness. In the instant case, the defendants found no circumstances
whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the person in the room
being then asleep would give them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his
identity. Moreover, 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, the killing being intentional and not accidental.

2) Yes. The Court held that the defendants committed the crime of murder with the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia, but may be entitled to an incomplete
justifying circumstance as provided in Article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal
Code. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a
justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. In the instant case, only the first requisite is present.
Thus, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law in case the crime committed is not
wholly excusable, was imposed, entitling the defendants to a privileged mitigating
circumstance.