Mistake of Fact

Case Title: U.S. vs Ah Chong; G.R. No. 5272; March 19, 1910

Ponente: Carson, J.

Facts:
Ah Chong and Gualberto were roommates in a small room which has only one small window, and
door, and in which the outside of the room was covered with heavy vines, making it impossible to see
from the inside. One night, while Ah Chong was sleeping, he was awakened by someone who was
forcibly opening the door. He was asking who was outside and threatening he would kill the one
outside if he dared to go inside, thinking that it was a thief or a robber.

The one outside was able to open the door, and threw Ah Chong backwards. The latter grabbed for a
kitchen knife and stabbed the person. The person ran outside as he found out it was Gualberto, his
roommate who died a day after the incident.
Issue/s: Whether or not one can be held criminally responsible by reason of mistake of facts.

Ruling: No. The accused acted in good faith in believing that it was a thief and thus feared for his life
and safety. If the presumption in his mind were true, his actions are justified. The same is true in this
case at bar, it was in good faith when he did the action and he do not have the criminal intent to hurt
his roommate.
Doctrine: Ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negate a particular intent which under the law is
necessary ingredient of the offense charged. Three requisites of mistake of fact as a defense: 1) the act
would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2) the intention of the
accused in the performing of the act should be lawful; 3) that the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.

Case Title: U.S. vs. Apego; G.R. No. 7929; November 8, 1912

Ponente: Torres, J.
Facts:
Genoveva stayed in the house of her sister and her brother-in-law. When the latter spouses went home,
Genoveva was awakened by the her brother-in-law, Bautista who caught the arm of the former. The
latter grabbed a pocketknife and stabbed Bautista causing his death.
Issue/s: Whether or not the accused is criminally responsible for the death of her brother-in-law.

Ruling: Yes. The accused exceeded in her right of self-defense since Bautista only held her arm.
Supreme Court ruled that the requirements to exempt the accused from criminal liability were
insufficient.
Doctrine:
Dissenting opinion: In repulsing a felonious attack a person may go as far in his self-defense as may
reasonably be necessary, view the circumstances of the case from his point of view.

Case Title: U.S. vs. Bautista; G.R. No. 10678; August 17, 1915

Ponente: Johnson, J.

Facts:
The defendant was charged with a crime of assault upon agents of the authorities and insulting them.
This happened when policemen entered in the house and cried for help to his neighbors shouting, “The
are some bandits here!”
However, when the policemen explained that they are policemen and proved that they had an order of
arrest the defendant complied peaceably.
Issue/s: Whether or not the defendant should be charged with a crime of assault upon the policemen.

Ruling: No. The defendant was under in a belief that the persons who entered his house were
“tulisanes.” If the defendant believed that those who had entered his house were, in fact tulisanes, he
was entirely justified in calling his neighbors for help.
Doctrine: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act itself foes not make a man guilty unless his
intention were so.”