US vs AH CHONG (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. L-5272             March 19, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.

Gibb & Gale, for appellant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee.

FACTS:

The accused, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in Fort Mckinley and was sharing the house with the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a house boy. 

One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of their room. Ah Chong sat up in bed and called out twice, “Who is there?” but heard no answer. The room was quite dark, and as there had been recent robberies in Fort McKinley, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, he leaped to his feet and called out. “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” Suddenly, he was struck by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow and wildly struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual.

The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his companion with his identity.

The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of repeated robberies in Fort McKinley.

Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door, despite the defendant's warnings.

Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating) circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

ISSUE:

W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts.

RULING:

No, the defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.

"The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so"

The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist.

"The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him."

If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a killing, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide.

The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense

He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts.

RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted. The case was a “mistake of fact” resulting to self-defense justified under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code where there is (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Had the deceased be a robber as he thought, his actions would not be criminally liable.