MISTAKE OF FACT - PEOPLE vs. GERVERO

PEOPLE vs. GERVERO having gone to bed was awakened by someone trying to open the door.
called
out twice, “who is there,” but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a
G.R. No. 206725, July 11, 2018 robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, “If you enter the room I will
kill you.” But at that precise moment, he was struck by a chair which had been
placed against the door and believing that he was then being attacked, he seized
Doctrines: a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to
be his roommate. A common illustration of innocent mistake of fact is the case of
Mistake of Fact.—The mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed a man who was marked as a footpad at night and in a lonely road held up a
without fault or carelessness. The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies friend in a spirit of mischief, and with leveled, pistol demanded his money or
only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. life. He was killed by his friend under the mistaken belief that the attack was real,
that the pistol leveled at his head was loaded and that his life and property were
Facts:
in imminent danger at the hands of the aggressor. In these instances, there is an
1. Victims Hernando Villegas (Hernando), Jose Villegas (Jose), and Benito innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the
Bausug, Jr. (Bausug) were members of the Civilian Volunteer Organization accused, having no time or opportunity to make a further inquiry, and being
(CVO). pressed by circumstances to act immediately, had no alternative but to take the
2. Accused were members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing.
(CAFGU), and were carrying firearms. They approached the victims and
Here, there was no reason for the accused not to recognize the victims because
asked money from Hernando, and the latter gave them Php 20. One of the
they were traversing an open area which was illuminated not only by moonlight,
accused (Bañes) remarked, “Is that the only amount you can give when you
but also by a light bulb. In addition, the witnesses testified that the victims were
just received money from your wife?” The other accused (Castigador), took
conversing and laughing loudly. It must be borne in mind that it was not the first
the money and said “You just watch out.”
time that the accused had seen the victims as, in fact, accused Bañes and
3. Later in the evening, a burst of gunfire from where the victims were
Castigador met Hernando just a few hours before the shooting. Moreover, they
walking was heard. A shout was heard, “This is Hernando, a CVO!” and
all reside in the same town and, certainly, the accused who were all members of
someone replied, “Birahi na! (Shoot now!)”.
the CAFGU would know the residents of that town so as to easily distinguish
4. The accused interposed the defense of mistake of fact, claiming that they
them from unknown intruders who might be alleged members of the NPA. Also,
thought the victims were members of the New People’s Army (NPA). The
when Jose fell down, Hernando identified himself and shouted, “This is
accused were given oral instructions by Senior Inspector Benigno
Hernando!” However, instead of verifying the identities of the victims, the
Baldevinos to conduct a tactical patrol and combat operations against the
accused continued to fire at them. One of them even shouted, “Birahi na!”
NPA. They were told to use the password “Simoy”, to which the response
(“Shoot now!”). In addition, when the victims fell down, the accused approached
would be “Amoy”.
their bodies. At that point, they could no longer claim that they didn’t recognize
Issue: Whether the defense of fact applies the victims; and still not contented, they sprayed them with bullets such that Jose
suffered 14 gunshot wounds, Hernando 16 gunshot wounds, and Benito 20
Ruling: No, mistake of fact finds on application in this case. gunshot wounds.
As early as in the case of People v. Oanis and Galanta, the Court has ruled that
mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness: In support of the theory of non-liability by reasons of honest
mistake of fact, appellants rely on the case of US v. Ah Chong. The maxim is
ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness. In the Ah Chong case, defendant therein after

MISTAKE OF FACT - PEOPLE vs. GERVERO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MISTAKE OF FACT - PEOPLE vs. GERVERO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MISTAKE OF FACT - PEOPLE vs. GERVERO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE vs. GERVERO having gone to bed was awakened by someone trying to open the door.

You might also like