People vs. Oanis (G.R. No.

L-47722, 27 July 1943)

Moran, J.

FACTS:
• On December 24, 1938, Capt. Monsod of Constabulary Provincial Inspector of Cabanatuan, Nueva
Ecija, received information about escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas, (with companion, a bailarina
named “Irene”), with orders to get the him dead or alive.
• Defendant Corporal Alberto Galanta and his companions, as well as defendant chief of police Oanis
were given the orders to get Balagtas.
• A search party was organized to find Balagtas, with Oanis and Galanta together with Fernandez
taking the route to Rizal street, leading to the supposed house of Irene.
• Upon arrival at the house, Oanis approached one Brigida Mallare and asked her where Irene's
room was. They also found out that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.
• The officers then entered the room, and upon seeing a sleeping man with his back facing the door,
fired shots with their 32 & 45 cal. revolvers, causing the man’s death.
o It turned out that the man they shot was Serapio Tecson.
• During the trial, the defendants gave a version of the story where they inquired the whereabouts of
Balagtas, to which they were told that he was sleeping in Irene’s room.
o Galanta alleges that upon opening the curtain covering the door, he said: "If you are
Balagtas, stand up." Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke up and as the former
was about to sit up in bed. Oanis fired at him.
o Meanwhile, Oanis alleges that that after he had opened the curtain covering the door and
after having said, "if you are Balagtas stand up." Galanta at once fired at Tecson, the
supposed Balagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed, and continued firing until he had
exhausted his bullets.
• Defendants allege that they acted in mistake of fact n the honest performance of their official duties,
both of them believing that Tecson was Balagtas.
• Sustaining this theory in part, the lower court held and declared them guilty of the crime of homicide
through reckless imprudence.

ISSUE/HELD: W/N defendants are guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence.
NO. They are guilty of Murder.

RATIO:

• The Rules of Court (at the time) provides: “No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in
making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is
necessary for his detention.”
• The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional
and not accidental.
• In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, simply being the
incident of another act performed without malice.
• The case at bar is differentiated from the case of US vs. Ah Chong where there was a mistake of
fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the accused, having no time or
opportunity to make a further inquiry. Here, Galanta and Oanis 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 deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia (treachery).
• However, a mitigating circumstance was present in this case. 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.
 o In the instance case, only the first requisite is present — appellants have acted in the
performance of a duty.

Paras, DISSENTING:

• The appellants are not criminally liable if the person killed by them was in fact Anselmo Balagtas
for the reason that they did so in the fulfillment of their duty and in obedience to an order issued by
a superior for some lawful purpose

DISPOSITION: Judgment modified, guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance.