Title
People vs. Oanis
Case
G.R. No. 47722
Decision Date
Jul 27, 1943
Police officers, acting on orders to capture an escaped convict "dead or alive," mistakenly killed an innocent man in his sleep. The Supreme Court ruled it as murder with mitigating circumstances, emphasizing excessive force and failure to verify identity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175039)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippines

Respondents

Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta

Key Dates

• December 24, 1938 – Operation and shooting occurred
• July 27, 1943 – Decision rendered

Applicable Law

• 1935 Philippine Constitution (operative at the time)
• Revised Penal Code: Articles 11 (Justifying Circumstances), 12 (Exempting Circumstances), 69 (Mitigation for Incomplete Justification), 235 (Murder)
• Rules of Court, Rule 109 § 2(2) on use of force in arrest
• Relevant jurisprudence (People v. Delima; U.S. v. Ah Chong; People v. Sara; People v. Gona)

Background of the Operation

A telegram from Manila ordered Capt. Monsod in Cabanatuan to apprehend escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas “dead or alive.” Monsod deputized his first sergeant’s men, including Corporal Galanta and P.C. Privates, and summoned Chief of Police Oanis. They were shown the telegram and a newspaper photo of Balagtas and instructed to arrest him or, if overpowered, to follow the “dead or alive” directive.

Events Leading to Tecson’s Death

Oanis, Galanta, and Private Fernandez were sent to locate Irene’s house on Rizal Street. At the yard they questioned Brigida Mallare, who indicated Irene’s room and stated that Balagtas slept there with his paramour. Without further verification, Oanis and Galanta approached the sleeping figure in the room—Serapio Tecson—and simultaneously or successively fired revolver shots (.32 and .45 calibers), killing him.

Conflicting Accounts and Witness Credibility

Appellants testified separately that they announced “If you are Balagtas, stand up” and that the victim either made a hostile movement or was about to sit up before being shot. These versions contradict each other and the neutral testimony of Irene Requinea, who consistently asserted that Tecson lay asleep with his back to the door when he was shot. The trial court—and this Court—found Irene’s demeanor and consistency persuasive, rejecting appellants’ self‐serving discrepancies.

Legal Issue on Mistake of Fact

Appellants claimed an innocent mistake of fact in honestly believing Tecson was Balagtas while performing their official duty, arguing this negates criminal liability or reduces the offense to reckless imprudence.

Analysis of Honest Mistake Doctrine

The Court distinguished this case from U.S. v. Ah Chong, where the accused acted under sudden, unavoidable fear without negligence. Here, Tecson was asleep and unarmed; appellants had ample opportunity to verify identity or effect a bloodless arrest. Their failure to inquire or warn rendered their belief unreasonable and negligent.

Standards for Use of Force in Arrest

Under Rule 109 § 2(2) and People v. Delima, an officer may use force reasonably necessary to overcome resistance or prevent escape but may not employ unnecessary or excessive force when arrest can be effected otherwise. No resistance or immediate threat existed in Tecson’s case; appellants exceeded lawful force.

Classification of the Crime Committed

The intentional discharge of firearms at an unsuspecting, sleeping victim constitutes murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (treachery). The killing was deliberate, not accidental or merely negligent; appellants intended to commit an unlawful act against a person they believed dangerous.

Incomplete Justifying



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.