People vs. Gona

G.R. No. 32066
Intoxicated defendant mistakenly killed Mapudul instead of Dunca during a quarrel; convicted of intentional homicide, mistake in identity not mitigating.
intentional homicide mistaken identity criminal responsibility

Case Digest (G.R. No. 32066)

Facts:

People of the Philippine Islands v. Gona (Mansaca), G.R. No. 32066, March 15, 1930, the Supreme Court, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court. The record shows that the defendant, Gona (Mansaca), was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Davao for the crime of homicide under an information alleging that on or about October 26, 1928, in Pantukan, Province of Davao, he assaulted Mansaca Mapudul with a bolo, inflicting a mortal wound on the left side of the neck that resulted in death.

At trial the court below found the defendant guilty as charged. In sentencing the trial court recognized the extenuating circumstance of non-habitual intoxication and imposed twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal with accessory penalties, ordered indemnification of P1,000 to the heirs, and awarded costs. The defendant appealed from that conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court.

The evidence showed that on the evening of October 26, 1928 a gathering of Mamacas at the house of Mansaca Gabriel involved drinking; some became intoxicated and a quarrel ensued. The altercation led to movements by several persons: Dunca and his son Aguipo left the house and were followed by Mapudul and one Awad. The defendant, intending to assault Dunca, left the house armed with a bolo; in the dark and while intoxicated he mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted the mortal wound. On appeal the defendant argued that because he intended to attack Dunca and not Mapudul, the killing was by mistake and should have been treated as homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of Article 568 of the Penal Code rather than as intentional homicide.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case on appeal and resolved the legal question of whether a killing committed by mistake of identity, but accomplished by ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Does a killing committed by a defendant who intended to kill a different person — i.e., a mistake of identity — reduce the offender's criminal liability from intentional homicide to homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of Article 568 of the Penal Code?
  • Was the trial court's allowance of non-habitual intoxication as an extenuating circumstance and ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest