Case Summary (G.R. No. 216120)
Procedural Posture
The trial court convicted Oanis and Galanta of homicide through reckless imprudence and sentenced each to an indeterminate term of 1 year and 6 months to 2 years and 2 months of prision correccional, plus joint and several indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs. Defendants separately appealed.
Facts as Found by the Trial Court
The Provincial Inspector received a telegram directing: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina name Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Monsod assembled a party including Galanta and privates and showed them the telegram and a newspaper picture. Oanis volunteered to accompany the party. The Inspector divided the party; Oanis, Galanta and a private approached the room indicated by Brigida. Inside, a man (Tecson) was sleeping with his back to the door. On sight the two accused fired at him (with .32 and .45 revolvers). Irene awoke to find her paramour already wounded and saw the defendants firing. Tecson was killed; autopsy disclosed multiple gunshot wounds caused by .32 and .45 caliber bullets. Galanta, when questioned by the Inspector, answered, "We two, sir," referring to himself and Oanis. Irene’s testimony and the autopsy were given significant weight by the trial court.
Appellants’ Versions and Contradictions
Both appellants offered exculpatory versions. Galanta testified that Oanis first fired when Tecson was about to sit up; Galanta then fired when Tecson rushed at him. Oanis testified that Galanta first fired while Tecson was still in bed and that Oanis only fired later. These accounts conflict with each other and differ materially in timing and conduct. The trial court found these testimonies mutually contradictory and not credible.
Credibility Findings by the Trial Court and the Majority
The trial court accepted Irene Requinea’s testimony and rejected appellants’ accounts. The majority affirmed that finding, noting the appellants’ conflicting statements and that Irene’s testimony was corroborated in material respects by the appellants’ own contradictory admissions (e.g., that Tecson was shot while in bed). The majority emphasized the trial court’s opportunity to observe the witness’ demeanor and the trial court’s reasonable refusal to credit the appellants’ self-serving explanations.
Legal Issues Presented
Primary legal questions:
- Whether the defendants, acting under an honest mistake of fact while performing official duties and following an order to get the fugitive "dead or alive," are criminally liable for the killing of a person they honestly, but mistakenly, believed to be the wanted man.
- Whether the killing, given the surrounding circumstances, constitutes reckless imprudence (homicide) or murder.
- Whether any justifying or mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code apply, specifically (a) the incomplete justifying circumstance of Article 11 No. 5 (acting in fulfillment of duty or in lawful exercise of office), (b) the doctrine of innocent mistake of fact, and (c) whether the qualifying circumstance of alevosia is present.
Precedents and Doctrinal Points Considered
The majority considered prior cases cited by the parties:
- U.S. v. Ah Chong (an instance of innocent mistake of fact without fault where pressing circumstances left no time for inquiry)—distinguished because in the present case the victim was asleep and no exigent danger compelled immediate deadly force.
- U.S. v. Donoso and other authorities emphasizing that notoriety of a criminal does not eliminate the right to life or authorize precipitate killing when arrest could be effected without lethal force. The majority reiterated principles that an officer may use only reasonably necessary force to effect an arrest and is not exempt from criminal liability for unnecessary or wanton violence; reckless or intentional killing where identity could have been ascertained is not excused by mere notoriety of the intended target.
Majority’s Legal Analysis and Holding
The majority held that the defendants did not merely commit criminal negligence; rather, their conduct amounted to intentional killing of a sleeping person and therefore constituted murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia (killing of a person while asleep). The majority rejected the claim of innocent mistake of fact on the ground that the appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain identity and effect a bloodless arrest; there were no circumstances pressing them to immediate lethal action. The majority also found that the incomplete justifying circumstance of Article 11 No. 5 applied in part (the appellants acted in the performance of a duty), but the second requisite for full justification— that the injury be a necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty—was lacking. Because not all requisites for full justification were present, Article 69 (penalty reduced by one or two degrees where the crime is not wholly excusable because some conditions required for justification are lacking) applied. On that basis the Court modified the judgment: appellants were declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance described (incomplete justification) and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correccional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with legal accessories, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased P2,000, with costs.
Distinctive Observations on Criminal Characterization
The majority distinguished reckless imprudence from intentional unlawful acts, emphasizing that where an intentional unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake as to the identity of the intended victim does not reduce the crime to reckless imprudence. The majority relied on prior rulings (People v. Nanquil; People v. Bindor; People v. Gona) for the principle that deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with reckless imprudence.
Dissenting Opinions — Overview and Reasoning
Two dissenting opinions took contrasting positions in favor of acquittal or reversal:
- Dissent by Justice Paras: He argued that appellants acted pursuan
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216120)
Procedural History
- Criminal information for the murder of Serapio Tecson; defendants Antonio Z. Oanis (chief of police of Cabanatuan) and Alberto Galanta (corporal, Philippine Constabulary) tried in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
- Trial court found appellants guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence and imposed on each an indeterminate penalty from one year and six months to two years and two months of prision correccional, and ordered them to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P1,000.
- Both defendants appealed separately.
- Supreme Court reviewed the record and rendered a decision modifying the judgment, as set forth below.
Factual Background — telegram, orders and assignment
- Date and origin: afternoon of December 24, 1938; Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, received from Major Guido a telegram reading: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina name Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive."
- Captain Monsod summoned his first sergeant and requested four men to effect arrest.
- Defendants Corporal Alberto Galanta and Privates Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D. Fernandez reported; they were shown the telegram and a newspaper clipping with Balagtas' picture and instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if overpowered, to follow the telegram's instruction.
- Chief of police Antonio Z. Oanis was likewise shown the telegram and clipping and was given the same instruction; he volunteered to join when he could not find his men to guide the constabulary.
Parties, persons present, and division of the arresting party
- Persons shown the telegram and assigned: Oanis (chief of police), Galanta (constabulary corporal), and the named privates.
- Captain Monsod divided the party into two groups; Oanis, Galanta and private Fernandez took the route to Rizal Street leading to the house where "Irene" was believed to live.
- Brigida Mallare was encountered in the yard stripping banana stalks; she pointed out Irene's room and stated that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.
The shooting incident (events at Irene’s room)
- On arrival at Irene’s room, Oanis approached Brigida and was told that the wanted man (Balagtas) was sleeping with Irene.
- The occupants encountered: a man (Serapio Tecson) lying in bed with his back to the door and Irene (Requinea) asleep beside him.
- On sighting the sleeping man, Oanis and Galanta fired at the man “simultaneously or successively” with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers.
- Irene awoke because of the gunshots, saw her paramour wounded and then observed the defendants still firing; she fainted thereafter.
- The person killed was not Anselmo Balagtas but Serapio Tecson, Irene’s paramour.
- Captain Monsod repaired to the scene; Galanta, referring to himself and Oanis, answered: "We two, sir."
- The corpse was brought to the provincial hospital; autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de Castro found multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a .32 and a .45 caliber revolver(s) which caused death.
Trial evidence and factual findings by the trial court
- The trial court found the foregoing facts and accepted the testimony of Irene Requinea as corroborated and reliable.
- The evidence, particularly Irene's testimony, fully supported the trial court's factual findings.
- The trial court concluded appellants acted in an innocent mistake of fact but with recklessness, convicting them of homicide through reckless imprudence and imposing the penalties stated above.
Appellants’ versions of the killing (their defenses)
- Galanta’s account: Brigida indicated the room and said Balagtas was also sleeping there; Oanis went to the room, opened a curtain and said "If you are Balagtas, stand up"; Tecson (supposed Balagtas) and Irene woke, and as Tecson began to sit up Oanis fired at him; wounded, Tecson leaned toward the door, Oanis shouted "That is Balagtas," and Galanta then fired at Tecson.
- Oanis’ account: After opening the curtain and saying "If you are Balagtas, stand up," Galanta immediately fired at the supposed Balagtas while he was still lying in bed and continued firing until his bullets were exhausted; only then did Oanis enter and, seeing the supposed Balagtas apparently watching and picking up something from the floor, Oanis fired at him.
- Both appellants asserted they believed the sleeping man to be the wanted Balagtas and acted under that belief; they claimed honest mistake of fact and obedience to orders.
Contradictions, credibility and the trial court’s assessment
- The trial court disbelieved appellants’ accounts as inherently incredible and materially contradictory.
- Specific contradictions highlighted:
- Oanis said he fired when Tecson was apparently watching and picking up something from the floor; Galanta said Oanis shot Tecson while Tecson was about to sit up immediately after being awakened.
- Galanta testified he fired when Tecson was rushing at him; Oanis testified Tecson was still lying in bed when Galanta fired.
- The mutual recriminations between appellants, however, dovetailed with and substantially corroborated Irene Requinea’s testimony that Tecson was still sleeping in bed when shot.
- The trial court had the opportunity to observe Irene's demeanor and found her testimony credible; her testimony survived cross-examination and misleading questions.
Autopsy and ballistic evidence
- Autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de Castro disclosed multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a .32 and a .45 caliber revolver(s).
- A ballistic expert testified concerning bullets (exhibits F and O): one bullet was extracted from the head of the deceased causing wound No. 3 of the autopsy and another was found at the scene; both had not been fired from Galanta’s revolver (Exhibit L) nor from any other revolver of the constabulary station in Cabanatuan.
- Galanta testified he fired only one shot and missed; he was armed with a .45 caliber revolver (Exhibit L) with serial No. 37121 and was known to have his regular ammunition. Evidence showed Exhibit L had been in Galanta’s possession and not substituted.
- The medico-legal expert testified that wound No. 2, while recorded by Dr. Castro as possibly from a .45, had an entrance diameter of 8 mm suggesting .32 caliber rather than .45, because a .45 caliber entrance would measure about 11–12 mm.
- The majority’s account emphasized that most other wounds were caused by bullets of a lesser caliber, and that the multiple wounds were consistent with shots from .32 and .45 revolvers.
Legal issues presented
- Whether appellants, who shot and killed a sleeping man they honestly believed to be the wanted Anselmo Balagtas, are criminally liable for the death.
- Whether appellants’ conduct constitutes:
- An innocent mistake of fact excusing criminal liability (relying on U.S. v. Ah Chong),
- Reckless imprudence or criminal negligence,
- Murder (including the possible qualifying circumstance of alevosia),
- Or an act falling within an incomplete justifying circumstance under Article 11, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 69 (penalty lowering).
- Whether the telegram order "get him dead or alive" and orders given by superiors justified the use of lethal force in the