US VS Ah Chong

GR No. L-5272,
March 19, 1910
FACTS:

The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at

"Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province. Living with him,
was Pascual Gualberto, deceased, who was also employed as a house boy.
No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a
small room which was not furnished with a permanent lock and was
connected to a narrow porch covered by a heavy growth of vines. Aside from
the door and a window which lead to the porch, there were no other
openings of any kind in the room.
There had been several robberies in Fort Mc Kinley which caused the
defendant to keep a knife under his pillow for protection. The defendant and
the deceased also agreed that when either returns at night, he should knock
on the door and say his name.
In the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00, the defendant, who
was afraid of bad elements, was awakened by someone trying to open the
door. He called out twice Who is there? but no one answered. Fearing that
the intruder was a robber or a thief, the defendant called out again "If you
enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment he was struck just above the
knee by the edge of the chair which he thought to be an unlawful
aggression, which had been placed against the door. Using his knife, the
defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out,
was his roommate. Thereupon, he called to his employers and rushed back
into the room to secure the bandages to bind up the wound. The defendant
was charged with murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant was criminally liable for

committing a felony.
DECISION:

The trial court held that the defendant was guilty of simple

homicide with extenuating circumstance.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and held
that the defendant must be acquitted.
DISCUSSION:

The case involving the defendant was one of a mistake of

fact resulting from self-defense which is a justifying circumstance under the

Revised Penal Code. The elements of self-defense are 1. unlawful aggression,
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and
lastly 3. lack of sufficient provocation on the person defending himself. On
the other hand, the requisites of a mistake of fact to be invoked as a defense
are 1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be, 2. that the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful and 3. that the mistake must be without
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
By reason of mistake of facts, the defendant did an act which would
exempt him from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to
be. That is if the person was actually a thief, the defendant would not be
held liable for that would be a case of self-defense, in accordance with the
law. Moreover, the defendant acted in good faith, without malice or criminal
intent and also cannot be held guilty of negligence or recklessness as the
facts as he saw them was a threat to his person and properties.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make
man guilty unless his intention were so; " Actus me incito factus non est

meus actus, "an act done by me against my will is not my act;". The essence
of the offense is the wrongful intent. Without which, it cannot exist. Since
evil intent is in general an inseparable element in every crime, any such
mistake of fact as shows the act committed to have proceeded from no sort
of evil in the mind necessarily relieves the actor from criminal liability
provided always there is no fault or negligence on his part.