THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendant-appellant GR No.

L-47722 July 27, 1943 FACTS In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, defendants Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta were tasked by their superior officers to arrest escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas, who was alleged to be with bailarina Irene in Cabanatuan, dead or alive. The defendants went in search of Irene, and, upon locating her house, asked one Brigida Mallare where said Irenes room was. Brigida indicated the place and upon further inquiry said that said Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Defendants then went to the specified location, and, seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. It turned out later that the man they shot and killed was not the criminal Anselmo Balagtas but an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irenes paramour. DECISION COURT OF ORIGIN The lower court held that the defendants were guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. ISSUE W/N negligence constitutes mistake of fact DECISION APPELLATE COURT The Supreme Court held that the crime committed by the defendants is murder though specially mitigated by circumstance. The appellants rely on the case of Ah Chong (15 Phil 488) to exempt them from liability through mistake of fact, but the Court stated that this can only apply if the mistake is done without fault or carelessness. In the case at hand, the appellants found no circumstances whatsoever to press them towards immediate action, as the person was asleep, giving them ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could have even made a bloodless arrest had reasonable measures been taken, as Irene Requinea said that the victim was unarmed. The Court writes that this is the only legitimate course of action the appellants should have taken as there were no instructions for them to shoot Balagtas on sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. The Court held that the crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence as it is intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury must be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice (People v Sara, 55 Phil 939). As once held in the Court, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence (People v Gona, 54 Phil 605) to support a plea of mitigated liability.