Case Digest

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta , defendant
appellants.

G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943

Issue: Whether or not Chief of Police Oanis and Corporal Galant is guilty of murder.

Ruling:

The judgment of the trial court is modified and appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder.

Facts:

Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galant were under the instruction
of their provincial inspector to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
convict and if overpowered to get him dead or alive.
Upon arriving to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with
his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers,
without making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity.
The victim turned out to be an innocent citizen, Serapio Tecson, who upon autopsy, multiple
gun-shot wounds were found on his body which caused his death.
The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest performance of their official duties,
they acted an innocent mistake of fact.
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is willfully done, a
mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence to
support a plea of mitigated liability.
The crime committed is murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia1.
According to Article 11, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), a person incurs no criminal
liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. The
SC mentioned two (2) requisites in the order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying
one, to wit:
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 this case, only the first requisite is present. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by
them committed is not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty.

SC stated that through impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to take no chances, they
have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by killing the person whom they believed to be

1
That the act be committed with treachery.
Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as to his
identity.