People vs. Gona (Mansaca)

A mistake in identity—killing one person instead of the intended victim—does not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility for intentional homicide, nor does it constitute a mitigating circumstance, provided it is proven that the accused acted maliciously and willfully.

On the evening of October 26, 1928, a group of Mamacas held a reunion at the house of Mansaca Gabriel in the municipal district of Pantukan, Davao. Alcoholic drinks were consumed liberally, leading to intoxication among some attendees and a subsequent quarrel between the defendant, Gona, and a man named Dunca. Dunca and his son, Aguipo, eventually left the house and were followed by Mapudul and another individual named Awad.

Gona left the house around the same time with the intention of assaulting Dunca. However, due to the darkness of the evening and his intoxicated state, Gona mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted a mortal bolo wound on the left side of Mapudul's neck, resulting in Mapudul's death. Gona was charged with homicide. The trial court found him guilty as charged, crediting the extenuating circumstance of non-habitual intoxication, and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased P1,000, and to pay costs.

• Mistake in Identity: The defendant argued that because he had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by mistake, he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence under paragraph 1 of Article 568 of the Penal Code rather than intentional homicide.

• Mistake in Identity: Whether a mistake in identity—killing the wrong person instead of the intended victim—relieves the accused of criminal responsibility for intentional homicide or reduces the crime to homicide through negligence under Article 568 of the Penal Code.

• Mistake in Identity: No. A mistake in killing one man instead of another, when the accused acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility, nor can it be considered a mitigating circumstance.

• Mistake in Identity: The defendant's intent to assault Dunca was malicious and willful; the fact that he mistakenly killed Mapudul instead does not negate the criminal intent inherent in the act. The error in the identity of the victim does not alter the malicious nature of the assault. Relying on precedent (United States vs. Mendieta), the Court held that such a mistake neither excuses the accused from criminal responsibility nor serves as a mitigating circumstance. The crime remains intentional homicide because the intent to kill or assault was present, merely directed at the wrong individual.

• Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity) — When an accused acts maliciously and willfully with the intent to kill or injure a specific person but mistakenly kills another, the mistake in identity does not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility for the resulting homicide. Furthermore, such mistake is not considered a mitigating circumstance. The criminal intent to commit the violent act is satisfied by the act itself, regardless of the identity of the actual victim.

• "That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another, when it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from criminal responsibility." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi that mistake in the identity of the victim does not exonerate a defendant who acted with malice and willfulness.
• "Neither do we believe that the fact that he made a mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating circumstance." — This clarifies that mistake in identity does not mitigate criminal liability when the original act was malicious.

• United States vs. Mendieta, 84 Phil. 242 — Followed. The Court relied on this case to reject the defendant's argument that mistake in identity should reduce the crime to homicide through negligence, affirming that malicious and willful action precludes such a defense.

• Article 568, Penal Code — The defense cited paragraph 1 of this article to argue for a conviction of homicide through negligence. The Court rejected this application, holding that the presence of malicious and willful intent precludes a conviction under this provision.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.