People of the Philippines V Sabalones

DOCTRINE: Transferred intent- error in personae

NATURE: This is a case elevated by the CA to the SC upon refraining on entering a judgment.

FACTS:

 On June 1, 1985 at 11:45 PM, respondents including Rolusape Sabalones, armed with firearms,
attacked and ambushed individuals riding in two vehicles. Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, and
Cabanero were convicted after a shooting incident in Cebu in 1985 which led to the death of
Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, and fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Rogelio
Presores.
 The victims were asked to bring the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended a wedding
party. Nelson Tiempo drove the car with Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the owner-type
jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the group back to the party after parking the
car at Lim’s house.
 According to a witness presented, Sabalones was implicated in the killing of Nabing Velez
because of the slapping incident involving her father-in-law, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and Nabing
Velez which took place prior to the death of Junior Sabalones (whose wake was during time of
the commission of the crime).
 The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong
persons was based on the extrajudicial statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of
Jennifer Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants believed that they
were suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his
group to retaliate against them
 The Trial Court observed that “they went to their grisly destination amidst the dark and
positioned themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of
supporters of the recently slain Nabing Velez.”

ISSUE:

W/N the case is one of “aberratio ictus”

HELD: NO.

The case is not one of aberration ictus but one of error in personae or mistake in identity, as observed
by the OSG.

RATIO:

Transferred intent is used when a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms
a second victim instead. In this case, the defendant's intent transfers from the intended victim to the
actual victim and can be used to satisfy the mens rea element of the crime that the defendant is being
charged with. The transferred intent doctrine is only used for completed crimes, and is not used for
attempted crimes.

Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to
imprecision of the blow. In the case at bar, the appellants opened fire because they mistook the vehicles
to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez . The fact that they were mistaken does not diminish
their culpability. The Court has held that “mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as
when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.”