Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    People vs. Oanis (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    Oanis and Galanta, police officers instructed to arrest a notorious criminal Balagtas, entered a house and shot a man sleeping there, believing him to be Balagtas. However, the man was Tecson, an innocent citizen. The court held Oanis and Galanta responsible for Tecson's death, as there were no circumstances requiring immediate action. They failed to properly identify the man before shooting, even though he was asleep and unarmed. While performing their duty, police cannot claim exemption from liability if they use unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Oanis (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    2K views2 pages
    Oanis and Galanta, police officers instructed to arrest a notorious criminal Balagtas, entered a house and shot a man sleeping there, believing him to be Balagtas. However, the man was Tecson, an innocent citizen. The court held Oanis and Galanta responsible for Tecson's death, as there were no circumstances requiring immediate action. They failed to properly identify the man before shooting, even though he was asleep and unarmed. While performing their duty, police cannot claim exemption from liability if they use unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Oanis and Galanta, police officers instructed to arrest a notorious criminal Balagtas, entered a house and shot a man sleeping there, believing him to be Balagtas. However, the man was Tecson, an innocent citizen. The court held Oanis and Galanta responsible for Tecson's death, as there were no circumstances requiring immediate action. They failed to properly identify the man before shooting, even though he was asleep and unarmed. While performing their duty, police cannot claim exemption from liability if they use unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    People vs. Oanis (Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Tini Guanio
    Oanis and Galanta, police officers instructed to arrest a notorious criminal Balagtas, entered a house and shot a man sleeping there, believing him to be Balagtas. However, the man was Tecson, an innocent citizen. The court held Oanis and Galanta responsible for Tecson's death, as there were no circumstances requiring immediate action. They failed to properly identify the man before shooting, even though he was asleep and unarmed. While performing their duty, police cannot claim exemption from liability if they use unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PEOPLE VS.

    OANIS
    GR. NO. L-47722 July 27, 1942
    Ponente: Moran
    SUBJECT: Mistake without fault or carelessness
    FACTS: Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta were
    under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and an
    escaped convict, and if empowered, to get him dead or alive. They
    proceeded to the suspected house and went into a room. Upon seeing a man
    sleeping with his back towards the door, they simultaneously or successively
    fired at him. It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the
    notorious criminal Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named
    Serapio Tecson.
    Oanis averred that he fired at Tecson when the latter was apparently about
    to pick up something from the floor. Galanta on the other hand claims that he
    fired at Tecson when the latter was rushing at him. They further contend that
    they incurred no criminal liability as they both acted in an innocent mistake
    of fact and in the honest performance of their official duties believing that
    Tecson was Balagtas.
    ISSUE: WON Oanis and Galanta may be held responsible for the death of
    Tecson.
    HELD: YES!
    Non-liability by reason of mistake of fact only when there is no fault
    or carelessness
    1. The theory of non-liability by reason of honest mistake of fact or
    the maxim ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is
    committed without fault or carelessness.
    2. In this case, there are no circumstances whatsoever which would
    press the police to immediate action. The person in the room being
    then asleep, they had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his
    identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a
    bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made,
    as the victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate
    course of action for them to follow even if the victim was really
    Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to
    arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or
    aggression happens.
    No unnecessary or unreasonable force in making arrest
    1. The new Rules of Court states that no unnecessary or

    unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest. In addition,


    the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint
    that is necessary for his detention.
    2. A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if
    he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.
    3. It may be true that Balagtas was a notorious criminal, a lifetermer, a fugitive from justice and a menace to the peace of the
    community, but these facts alone constitute no justification for
    killing him when, in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance, or
    in fact no resistance can be offered, as when he is asleep.
    Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty or lawful
    exercise of right or duty applicable
    4. As Tecson was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with
    qualifying circumstance of alevosia. There is, however a mitigating
    circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance under Art. 11, No. 5 of
    the RPC. According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal
    liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
    right or office.
    5. Requisites that Art. 11 No. 5 may be taken into consideration:(a) that the
    offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
    right; and
    (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of
    the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
    office.
    6. In this case, only the first requisite is present. The second is wanting as
    the act committed is not the necessary consequence of the performance of
    their duty. The duty was to arrest Balagtas or to get him dead or alive in case
    of resistance. But through impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to
    take no chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by killing
    the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from
    him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.

    You might also like