Case Digest

Facts:

Upon receiving a telegram from Major Guido ordering the custody of the escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene, if overpowered get dead or alive, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, asked that he be given four men, one of which reported was Alberto Galanta. The same instruction was given to Antonio Oanis, chief of police of Cabanatuan, who was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups. As a group taking the route to Rizal Street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Alberto Galanta, proceeded to the house where Irene was supposedly living. Upon arrival at the place, Oanis approached and asked Brigada Mallare where Irene's room was. Brigada indicated the room and said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour. The group went to the Irene’s room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene fainted; 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, Irene's paramour.

Question:

Whether or not the accused, Alberto Galanta and Antonio Z. Oanis, be criminally liabel for the death of Serapio Tecson?

Held:

        Yes, both the accused are criminally liable.  If a person acted through an innocent mistake of fact in the performance of his official duties, then he does not acquire criminal liability. Nevertheless, the maxim ignorantia facti excusat, applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the case, the defendants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action, as the person in the room being then asleep would give them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity. Furthermore, 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. Thus, through impatience of desire to take chances and have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty by killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity, the crime committed by defendants was not merely criminal negligence, but being intentional rather than accidental.