People v. Oanis v. Galanta

Case Title and Citation

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants. Antonio Z. Oanis in his own behalf. G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943
Supreme Court - Manila En Banc
Ponente: Justice Moran

---

Facts

• In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received a telegram ordering Balagtas to be gotten “dead or alive,” following information that escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas was in Cabanatuan with a bailarina named Irene.
• Captain Monsod summoned four men (including defendant Galanta) and instructed them to arrest Balagtas and pursue the telegram’s command if overpowered. The same instruction was given to chief of police Oanis.
• The Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups; Oanis and Galanta with private Fernandez went toward Irene’s house. Brigida Mallari directed them to Irene’s room and indicated the location.
• Upon entering Irene’s room, Oanis and Galanta found a man sleeping with his back to the door. They simultaneously or successively fired at him with .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. Irene, awakened by the gunshots, saw her paramour wounded and the door being fired upon; she fainted. The person killed was Serapio Tecson, not Balagtas.
• The Provincial Inspector asked who killed Tecson; Galanta answered, “We two, sir.”
• An autopsy showed multiple gunshot wounds from a .32 and a .45 caliber revolver.
• Appellants offered a defense, claiming that Balagtas (the wanted man) was in the room, that Oanis announced “If you are Balagtas, stand up,” and that Tecson (not Balagtas) was killed as he lay in bed or while attempting to reach something.
• The trial court rejected the appellants’ exculpatory testimonies, crediting Irene Requinea’s account that Tecson was sleeping in bed when shot.
• The court considered that the defendants acted on a mistaken belief that Tecson was Balagtas, but held they could still be liable for murder if the act was intentional and not justified by necessity or lawful performance of duty.
• The defense relied on innocent mistake of fact (Ah Chong) to argue non-liability; the court rejected this, concluding the killing was not merely reckless imprudence but murder with mitigating circumstances.
• The trial court found alevosia (premeditated or with treachery) as the qualifying circumstance and held that the incomplete justifying circumstances defined in Article 11, No. 5 (duty/right of office) could mitigate the liability. The court sentenced the appellants to five (5) to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment with indemnity to the heirs.
• The Court modified the judgment: appellants were found guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 5–15 years of prision correctional to reclusion temporal, with costs, and indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs, jointly and severally.

---

Issues

1. Did the appellants murder Tecson rather than committing homicide through reckless imprudence?
2. Is there a valid incomplete justifying circumstance under Article 11, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, arising from performing a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office?
3. Should the penalty be reduced under Article 69 due to the presence of mitigating or justificatory circumstances?

---

Ruling

1. Yes — The killing constituted murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, not homicide through reckless imprudence.
2. Yes — There is an incomplete justifying circumstance under Article 11, No. 5 (fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office), but it is not a complete exculpation; it mitigates liability to some degree.
3. Yes — Under Article 69, the penalty is to be reduced one or two degrees from the standard penalty, given the presence of the jusificatory circumstance, resulting in a reduced indeterminate sentence.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The Court rejected the defense of an innocent mistake of fact (Ah Chong) because the appellants had ample time to verify the victim’s identity before using deadly force; they acted without properly identifying the target and without attempting a lawful, nonlethal arrest.
• Notoriety of Balagtas did not justify killing when the victim, who was unarmed and sleeping, offered no resistance; the officers were required to avoid unnecessary force in arrest operations.
• The acts were not simply criminal negligence; there was an intentional killing. The presence of alevosia (killings carried out in a premeditated or treacherous manner) was established because Tecson was asleep and the officers, on sight, fired at him as if Balagtas.
• Article 11, No. 5 (acting in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right) provided a mitigating factor, but not a complete exemption. The duty to arrest Balagtas was not fulfilled in a way that made the killing a necessary consequence of that duty.
• Article 69 provides that a penalty may be reduced by one or two degrees if the deed is not wholly excusable and the required conditions for exemption are not fully met; the court found the first requisite present (duty exercised) but the second (necessary consequence) lacking, hence a reduction was appropriate.
• The Court cited and relied on various jurisprudence and doctrinal sources, including People v. Delima, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court, U.S. v. Ah Chong, and other earlier Philippine cases, to frame the standards for justifying circumstances, the use of force in arrest, and the application of Article 69.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• A magistrate or police officer may not employ unnecessary or unreasonable force in making an arrest; the victim’s life is protected unless there is a clear, immediate threat and proper lawful authority justifies otherwise.
• Honest mistake of fact in enforcing a duty does not automatically exculpate liability if reasonable precautions to verify identity were available and not taken.
• Notoriety or status of a criminal does not justify the death of a suspect when the suspect is unarmed and not resisting; alevosia may be established where the killing occurs while the victim is asleep and unable to resist.
• Incomplete justifying circumstances under Article 11, No. 5 (fulfillment of a duty or legitimate exercise of a right or office) may mitigate liability, but does not necessarily exonerate it; the adjunct conditions in Article 69 require consideration when applying the penalty reduction.
• Article 69 allows the court to lower the penalty by one or two degrees when the deed is not wholly excusable due to missing requisites for exemption.

---

Disposition

• The fallo is that the appellants, Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta, are declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance of acting in the performance of a duty or office, and are sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the heirs of Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, with costs.
• The petition for acquittal is denied; the sentence is modified from the lower court’s homicide through reckless imprudence to murder with mitigating circumstance.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• Paras, J., dissented: Argued that the appellants were not criminally liable if they acted in execution of a lawful order to capture Balagtas dead or alive and that the case resembled an honest mistake of fact similar to Ah Chong; suggested acquittal.
• Hontiveros, J., dissented: Also favored acquittal based on the evidence that the appellants acted under official instruction and that they faced a dangerous situation with a reasonable belief that Balagtas was in the room; rejected the majority’s application of the alevosia and the incomplete justifying circumstance as improperly applied.

---

Significance / Notes

• Clarifies the limits of police action in arrest operations, especially when faced with danger and uncertain identity, emphasizing that unlawful, unnecessary, or excessive force cannot be justified merely by the offender’s notoriety.
• Establishes that an officer acting in the performance of a duty may invoke an incomplete justifying circumstance to mitigate liability, but such a circumstance does not fully excuse the act if the injury was not a necessary consequence of the performance of the duty.
• Demonstrates the application of Article 69 in adjusting penalties when mitigating circumstances are present but partial, balancing accountability with the circumstances of official action.
• Highlights the conflict between dissenting opinions and majority interpretations regarding the legality of acting under orders to capture a suspect dead or alive and the degree to which such acts can be considered justifiable.