PEOPLE vs.

SABALONES
FACTS:
On June 1, 1985 at 11:45 PM, respondents including Rolusape Sabalones, armed with firearms, attacked
and ambushed individuals riding in two vehicles resulting to the death of two persons and injury to three
others.
According to a witness presented, Sabalones was implicated in the killing of Nabing Velez because of the
slapping incident involving her father-in-law, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and Nabing Velez, which took place
prior to the death of Junior Sabalones (whose wake was during time of the commission of the crime).
The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong persons was
based on the extrajudicial statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy. These
pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the
recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against them.
The Trial Court observed that they went to their grisly destination amidst the dark and positioned
themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of supporters of the recently slain
Nabing Velez.
ISSUE: W/N the case is one of aberratio ictus
HELD:
NO. The case is not one of aberration ictus but one of error in personae or mistake in identity, as observed
by the OSG.
Transferred intent is used when a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a
second victim instead. In this case, the defendant's intent transfers from the intended victim to the actual
victim and can be used to satisfy the mens rea element of the crime that the defendant is being charged
with. The transferred intentdoctrine is only used for completed crimes, and is not used for attempted crimes.
Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to
imprecision of the blow. In the case at bar, the appellants opened fire because they mistook the vehicles to
be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez. The fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their
culpability. The Court has held that mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the
accused zeroes in on his intended victim.