Scribd
Upload
102 views1 page

People vs. Oasnis, G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943 (Performance of Duty)

1) Police Chief Oanis and Corporal Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal named Balagtas. 2) Upon arriving at the home of Balagtas's paramour Irene, Oanis and Galanta shot and killed the man sleeping in Irene's room, believing it was Balagtas. 3) However, the man they killed was actually Tecson, Irene's innocent paramour, not the wanted criminal Balagtas. Oanis and Galanta were charged with murder.

Uploaded by

Eugene Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
102 views1 page

People vs. Oasnis, G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943 (Performance of Duty)

1) Police Chief Oanis and Corporal Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal named Balagtas. 2) Upon arriving at the home of Balagtas's paramour Irene, Oanis and Galanta shot and killed the man sleeping in Irene's room, believing it was Balagtas. 3) However, the man they killed was actually Tecson, Irene's innocent paramour, not the wanted criminal Balagtas. Oanis and Galanta were charged with murder.

Uploaded by

Eugene Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs. Oasnis, G.R. No.

47722, July 27, 1943 (Performance of Duty)


Facts:

Captain Godofredo Monsod (Provincial Inspector of Cabanatuan) was instructed to arrest Balagtas, a
notorious criminal, and, if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. The same instruction was given to the
Chief of Police Oanis who knew the whereabouts of Irene, the paramour of Balagtas. Upon arriving at
Irene’s house, Oanis approached Mallare and asked her where Irene’s room was. Mallare indicated the
place and upon further inquiry also said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.

Defendants Oanis and Galanta (Corporal of the Philippine Constabulary) then went to the room of Irene,
and upon 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. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw
her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the defendants
still firing at him. It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not Balagtas but a peaceful and
innocent citizen named Tecson, Irene’s paramour.

Consequently, Oanis and Galanta were charged with the crime of murder.

The trial court found the appellants guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. Hence, the present
appeal. It is contended that, as appellants acted in innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance
of their official duties, both of them believing that Tecson was Balagtas, they incur no criminal liability.
Appellants rely on the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong.

Issue:

Whether or not appellants are criminally liable for the death of Tecson.

Ruling:

Yes. The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being intentional
and not accidental.

Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to
secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm yet he is never justified in using unnecessary force or in
treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be
affected. And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force
or violence in making an arrest. Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled official alertness and
vigilance; it never can justify precipitate action at the cost of human life.

You might also like