CASE NO.

39
ART III: Definitions
Mistake of Fact
People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, 27 July 1943

MAIN POINT:
An honest mistake of fact can relieve the accused from criminal liability if the mistake
done is without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

FACTS:
Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta were instructed by the
Constabulary Provincial Inspector to arrest the escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with
bailarina name Irene, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. When the group
arrived at Irene's house, Oanis approached one Brigida Mallare, who was then stripping
banana stalks, and asked her where Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the place and
upon further inquiry also said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Oanis and
Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and upon seeing a man sleeping with his back
towards the door, they simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers. It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious
criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson.

ISSUE:
Whether Oanis and Galanta can be held responsible for the death of Tecson.

RULING:
Yes. Under Article III of the Revised Penal Code, an accused may be relieved from
criminal liability for ignorance or mistake of fact. One of the requisites was that the
mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

In this case, ignorantia facti excusat cannot be applied because the mistake was with
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. The accused found no circumstances
whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being
then asleep, appellants 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 victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only
legitimate course of action for appellants to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas,
as 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.

Hence, the accused were at fault when they shot the victim in violation of the
instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the identity of
the victim. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused
would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. The accused were
declared guilty of murder.