People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta, defendants-appellants
G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
MORAN, J.
Facts:
On December 24, 1938, defendant-appellant, Alberto Galanta, Corporal of the
Philippine Constabulary, received instructions from Major Guido, thru Captain
Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija,
to arrest an escaped convict in the name of Anselmo Balagtas. Captain Monsod
likewise called the other defendant-appellant, Antonio Z. Oanis, Chief of Police, and
gave him the same instructions. Monsod divided them into two groups. Oanis and
Galanta, and Private Fernandez went to the house of a specific Irene, a bailarina,
who was alleged to be with Balagtas. Upon arrival at the house where the said Irene
was supposedly living, they approached someone named Brigida Mallare and Oanis
inquired from her. She indicated the place where Irene was, and also said that Irene
at such moment was with her paramour. Defendants went to the room of Irene, and
upon seeing a man with her, who was sleeping with his back towards the door. They
fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers and it turned out later that the
man they killed was not the notorious criminal but an innocent man named Serapio
Tecson. Defendants were sentenced, after due trial by the lower court, guilty of
homicide through reckless imprudence to an indeterminate penalty of from one year
and six months to two years and two months of prision correccional and to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000.
The defendants appealed from the judgment. Sentence has been modified and
appellants were declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance due to
incomplete justifying circumstance as defined in Article 11, No. 5 of the Revised
Penal Code. Accordingly, appellants were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
from five years of prision correctional to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, with
indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, amounting to P2,000.
Issues:
a. Whether or not the appellants, Oanis and Galanta, were criminally liable for
the death of Serapio Tecson?
b. Whether or not the appellants will be entitled to mitigating circumstances?

Held:
a. Yes, the defendants were criminally liable for the death of the victim who has
been mistakenly thought to be the notorious criminal. The defendants had
the opportunity to verify the victims identity since he was asleep during the
time he was shot and killed. The defendants could have avoided killing an
innocent person had they been inquisitive prior to the commission of their
act. The defendants acted negligently in the performance of their duty, thus,
mistake of fact is not a defense.
b. Yes, the appellants were entitled to mitigating circumstances. As provided in
Article 11, number 5, of the Revised Penal Code, a person do not incur
criminal liability who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the exercise of a
right or office. There are two requisites for a circumstance to be taken as
justifying: (1) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (2) 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 this case, the crime committed is not wholly
excusable because only the first requisite was met. The defendants have
committed the crime while in the performance of their duty as peace officers
since they have been instructed by their superiors to arrest Balagtas, the

notorious criminal. However, the defendants have acted beyond the

instructions given to them, which is only to arrest Balagtas and get him dead
or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Therefore, the
second requisite is wanting since the crime they committed does not
constitute a necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty. Thus,
as per Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, a penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly
excusable.