US vs. Ah Chong door open. He called out twice, “Who is there?
” but
Summarized by Sarah
Ah Chong and Pascual Gualberto were roommates. One night,
after Ah Chong had gone to bed, he was awakened by someone
trying to open the door. Believing that he is being attacked, he
gets a kitchen knife and kills the intruder, who turned out to be
his roommate Pascual. He is acquitted on the ground that his
mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.
Important People: Ah Chong (Defendant), Pascual Gualberto
(Deceased)
FACTS: (In order of chronological events)
1. The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at Officer’s
Quarters, No. 27 in Fort McKinley, Rizal Province. Pascual
Gualberto was employed at the same place as a house boy or
muchacho.
2. Officer’s Quarters No. 27 is a detached house about 40 meters
away from the nearest building and was occupied solely as an
officer’s mess hall. Ah Chong and Pascual Gualberto shared a
room in this building.
3. The door of the room did not have a lock, but the occupants
attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door as a
measure of security. They reinforced this by placing a chair
against the door.
4. Prior to the incident, there had been several robberies in Fort
McKinley, and due to this, the defendant kept a knife under his
pillow for personal protection.
5. In addition, the roommates had an understanding that when
either returned at night, he should knock at the door and
acquaint his companion with his identity.
6. On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00pm, the
defendant was awakened by someone trying to force the
received no answer. The defendant leapt to his feet and called
out “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” At that moment, he
was struck by the edge of the chair that was placed against the
door. The defendant thought that the blow was inflicted by
the person who was trying to get in the room, who he
supposed to be a burglar. Seizing a kitchen knife he kept
under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder, who turned out to be Pascual.
7. Pascual ran out of the room, followed by the defendant, who
recognized him in the moonlight.
8. Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers
and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual’s
wounds.
9. The defendant admitted that he had stabbed his
roommate, but said that he did it under the impression
that Pascual was a burglar because he forced the door
open, despite the defendant’s warnings.
10. Defendant was placed under arrest, while Pascual was taken
to the hospital where he died from his wounds the following day.
11. The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination
and was put on trial. At the trial, the defendant admitted that he
struck the fatal blow but maintained that he did not intend to
do a wrongful act, and was exercising his right to self-
defense.
12. Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple
homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six
years and one day presidio mayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not one can be held criminally responsible who, by
reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act for which he
would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he
supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of
homicide if the actor had known the true state of the facts.
HOLDING:
No, defendant cannot be held criminally responsible.
- There is no criminal liability, provided that the alleged
ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to
negligence or bad faith.
- The acts constituting a crime or offense must be
committed with malice or with criminal intent in order that
the actor may be held criminally liable.
- A voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act,
and without intention, there can be no crime.
- Since evil intent is in general an inseparable element in
every crime, any such mistake of fact shows the act
committed to have proceeded from no sort of evil in the
mind necessarily relieves the actor from criminal liability,
provided always that there is no fault or negligence on his
part.
- “The guilt of the accused must depend on the
circumstances as they appear to him.” – Baron Parke
- “Whenever a man undertakes self-defense, he is justified
in acting on the facts as they appear to him. If, without
fault or carelessness, he is misled concerning them, and
defends himself correctly according to what he thus
supposes the facts to be, the law will not punish him
though they are in truth otherwise, and he has really no
occasion for the extreme measure.” (Bishop’s New Criminal
Law)
The Court ruled that:
- The defendant struck the fatal blow in the firm belief that
the intruder who forced open his door was a thief, from
whose assault he was in imminent peril
- That in view of 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 exercising his right to self-defense
- That had the facts been as he believed them to be, he
would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability
- That he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness or carelessness in falling into his mistake as
to the facts
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial
court was reversed, and the defendant was acquitted of the
crime.
OTHER NOTES:
Legal maxims mentioned:
Actus non facit reum nisi mens The act itself does not make a
sit rea man guilty unless his intention
were so.
Actus me invito factus non est An act done by be against my
meus actus will is not my act.
Ignorantia facti excusat Ignorance or mistake on point
of fact is a sufficient excuse.