The United States (Plaintiff-appellee) v.
Ah Chong (Defendant-
Title (Topic) appellee) - G.R. No. L-5272
Date of the Case March 19, 1910
Ah Chong (Defendant)
Employed as cook at "Officers' quarters No. 27 Fort McKinley Rizal Province
together with his roommate Pascual Gualberto (Deceased) employed as house
boy or muchacho. As they go to bed, they always place a chair under the door
knob of their bedroom door for their security and he always kept a kitchen knife
under his pillow for protection. In reasons why, several robberies in Fort
McKinley not long to a prior date of the incident happened
Before the incident
Before the incident happened, they both agreed to knock at the door and
acquiant his companion with his identity
with the said agreemeng, Pascual had left and gone for a walk together with his
friends- CELESTINO QUIAMBAO and MARIANO IBANEZ who happened to be
servants employed too at officer's quarters No. 28
August 14, 1998 (The aftermath)
10:00 evening, the defendant, was suddenly awakened b some trying to force
open the door of the room
Sat up and called out TWICE "Who is there"
heard nothing yet the door was being pushed open by someone - forcing his
way into the room
The room was very dark- the defendant fearin that the intruder was a robber
Facts or a thief
He called out again "IF YOU ENTER THE ROOM, I WILL KILL YOU"
After he said that, he was strucked ABOVE THE KNEE by the EDGE OF THE
CHAIR WHHICH HAD BEEN PLACED AGAINST THE DOOR.
In darkness and confusion Ah Chong thought the reason of being strucked by
the chair placed in the bedroom door cause by a BURGLAR
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant
struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his
roommate, Pascual.
Pascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the steps in a desperately
wounded condition
He was followed by Ah chong who late on recognized him as his roommate.
Ah chong called for help - to his employers who slept in the next house, No.
28 and ran back into his room to get bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
Pascual found by his friends who happened to acompany him in walking
before the incident happened fatally wounded in the stomach
One of his friends ran back and called Liuetenants JACOB and HEALY and
they immediately went to the aid of wounded man.
Pascual was conveyed to the military hospital and he died the next day due to
the effects of the wound
Ah Chong was placed under arrest forthwith
Whether in this jurisdiction one can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of
Issues
a mistake as to the facts
No.
No criminal liability provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith.
In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is
sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of
the offense charged "cancels the presumption of intent," and works an acquittal; except
in those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction under the penal
provisions touching criminal negligence; and in cases where, under the provisions of
article 1 of the Penal Code one voluntarily committing a crime or misdeamor incurs
criminal liability for any wrongful act committed by him, even though it be different from
that which he intended to commit.
To answer the said issue, a careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at
bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman- Ah Chong struck the fatal blow alleged
in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his
sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life
Ruling
and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the
circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time,
he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing
no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as
he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on
account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the
means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe
threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.
The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found
guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and
sentenced to six years and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty
prescribed by law. (1st verdict)
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be
reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and
his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio. (2 nd verdict)
