Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People vs. Oanis

    Uploaded by

    Ernesto A. Amora
    47 views2 pages
    1. Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta, a chief of police and constable, were instructed to arrest a known criminal. When they arrived at the house of their suspect, they shot and killed a man sleeping in the room, who turned out to be an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson. 2. The court held that Oanis and Galanta were criminally liable because they did not ascertain the identity of the man without risk to themselves before shooting, and killing a sleeping man was not necessary to effect the arrest. Mistake of fact is not a valid defense if the mistake resulted from fault or carelessness. 3. The court found their crime was murder, not reckless imp

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta, a chief of police and constable, were instructed to arrest a known criminal. When they arrived at the house of their suspect, they shot and killed a man sleeping in the room, who turned out to be an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson. 2. The court held that Oanis and Galanta were criminally liable because they did not ascertain the identity of the man without risk to themselves before shooting, and killing a sleeping man was not necessary to effect the arrest. Mistake of fact is not a valid defense if the mistake resulted from fault or carelessness. 3. The court found their crime was murder, not reckless imp

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    People vs. Oanis

    Uploaded by

    Ernesto A. Amora
    1. Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta, a chief of police and constable, were instructed to arrest a known criminal. When they arrived at the house of their suspect, they shot and killed a man sleeping in the room, who turned out to be an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson. 2. The court held that Oanis and Galanta were criminally liable because they did not ascertain the identity of the man without risk to themselves before shooting, and killing a sleeping man was not necessary to effect the arrest. Mistake of fact is not a valid defense if the mistake resulted from fault or carelessness. 3. The court found their crime was murder, not reckless imp

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Brief – Subject (Criminal Law 1)

    People vs. Oanis (74 Phil 257)


    G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943
    PARTIES:
    Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines
    Defendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis, Alberto Galanta
    MORAN, J.:
    Full text of the case: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1943/jul1943/gr_l-47722_1943.html
    FACTS:
    Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal of Philippine Constabulary Alberto
    Galanta were instructed to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped
    convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They were informed thatBalagtas is
    with Irene Requinea at that time. When they arrived at Requinea's house, Oanis approached
    and asked Brigida Mallare where Irene's room was. Mallare indicated the place and upon
    further inquiry also said that Requinea was sleeping with her paramour. Defendants then went
    to the said room, and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
    simultaneously or successively fired at him with their revolvers. It turned out later that the
    person shot and killed was a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio
    Tecson. Accordingly, the Lower Court (LC) charged and found the accused guilty
    of homicide through reckless imprudence and were sentenced each to an indeterminate
    penalty of from one year and six months to two years and two months of prison
    correctional and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
    P1,000. However, defendants appealed separately from this judgment claiming different
    versions of the tragedy each one blaming the other.
    ISSUE:
    1. WON, defendants incur no criminal liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest
    performanceof their official duties.
    2. WON, the acts committed by the defendants be considered as criminal negligence and,
    being an act in the fulfillment of a duty, is a justifying circumstance to exempt the defendants
    from criminal liability.
    HELD:
    1. NO, the theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact is not a valid defense
    for the Oanis and Galanta. As per the case U.S. v. Ah Chong , the maxim ignorantia facti
    excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. There is an
    innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness if the accused, having
    no time or opportunity to make a further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act
    immediately, had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such
    facts justified his act of killing. In addition, Section 2 (2), Rule 109 of the Rules of Court
    reads, “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.”
    Here, Oanis and Galanta found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to
    immediate action. Given Tecson 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. Thus, the defendants have
    no justification for killing, be it Balagtas or Tecson, when in effecting his arrest, he offers no
    resistance or in fact no resistance can be offered, as when he is asleep.
    2. NO, the crime committed by defendants is not merely criminal negligence.
    As once held by the Supreme Court (SC), a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is
    essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence (People v. Nanquil; People v.
    Bindor), and where such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the
    intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence (People vs. Gona) to support a
    plea of mitigated liability. 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. In the case at bar, 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. Their duty was to arrest Balagtas or to get him dead or alive if resistance is offered by
    him and they are overpowered. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the appellants are
    held guilty of murder, and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5)
    years of prison correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of
    the law, and to pay the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000,
    with costs.

    You might also like