US V.

AH CHONG
G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910
CARSON, J.:

FACTS:
The defendant, Ah Chong, a cook, and Pascual Gualberto, the deceased house boy, were
working in the same office and living in the same room. The lock of the room was not furnished
and so they put a chair at the back of the door to secure their place.

Not long prior to the incident, there had been several robberies reported near their place. Since
then, Ah Chong kept a knife under his pillow for personal protection. Also, they had an
agreement that when either returned, he should knock the door and give his identity.

One night, the defendant, was suddenly awakened by a force trying to open the door of the
room. He asked for the identity of the intruder but he did not answer.

At that moment he was struck by the edge of the chair and in confusion, he thought that the
blow had been inflicted by the intruder. Seizing his knife, he struck out wildly at the intruder
whom later identified as his roommate, Pascual.

The defendant then and there admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, because he thought
his a ladron as he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite his warnings. The
deceased was playing a trick to frighten him in order for Ah Chong to believe that he was being
attacked by a robber.

Pascual died a day after and the trial court convicted Ah Chong with homicide. He made an
appeal contending that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act and in
the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant is criminally liable for the death of Pascual

RULING:
No. he is not criminally liable.

There is no criminal liability, provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith.

In the case at bar, the defendant struck the fatal blow in the firm belief that the intruder who
forced open the door was a thief. That in view of all the circumstances, the defendant at the
time, 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.

The judgment was reversed and the defendant was acquitted.