People of the Philippines v Ah Chong

FACTS

August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open
the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no answer and
was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his
way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet
and called out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment he was struck just above the knee
by the edge of the chair (thought to be an unlawful aggression) which had been placed against the door.
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder who, it turned out, was his roommate, Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the
spirit of mischief was playing a trick on him

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.

There had been several robberies not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took place in a
house where he was employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.

The roommates agreed that when they return at night, he should knock the door and inform him of his
identity. Pascual didn’t do that, leading Ah Chong to believe he was indeed, a robber.

Defendant was placed under arrest forthwith, and Pascual was conveyed to the military hospital, where
he died from the effect of the wound of the following day.

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.

ISSUE

Whether or not defendant 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 or assassination if the actor had known
the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act.

RULING NO, the decision of the trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime

GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal intent in
order that the actor may be held criminally liable

 Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code states that “crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and
omissions punished by law.”
 Art 3 of RPC. “Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies. Felonies are committed by
means of deceit (dolo) and also by means of fault (culpa).
 A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit

For it to be a crime, there should malicious intent (dolo)

Dolo – intent to do an injury to another.

Requisites of dolo or malice:

 Freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act;

 Intelligence while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
 Intent while doing the act or omitting to do the act.

EX: he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express provisions of article 8 of the code

However, in the case at bar, the provisions in Art 8 cannot be used as a defense since the victim was not
a thief nor a “lardon”. That neither the defendant nor his property nor any of the property under his
charge was in real danger at the time when he struck the fatal blow. That there was no such "unlawful
aggression" on the part of a thief or "ladron" as defendant believed he was repelling and resisting, and
that there was no real "necessity" for the use of knife to defend his person or his property or the
property under his charge.

It cannot also be a felony by fault.

Requisites of culpable crimes:

 Freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act;

 Intelligence while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
 Intent is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or skill

Since there was no malicious intent, nor negligence, then there was a mistake of fact.

Mistake of Fact

 A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused an injury to another. He is not,
however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.

Requisites:

 That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
 That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
 That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

Based on the ff principles:

 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so”
 “ Actus me incito factus non est meus actus” - an act done by me against my will is not my act

ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness

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;
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 cannot 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 believed threatened his person and his property and the property under his
charge.

People of the Philippines vs Oanis

Facts

 December 24, 1983, Captain Monsod, Constabularly at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecia, received a
telegram from Major Guido that the notorious criminal was found to be in the house of Irene in
Cabanatuan
 Captain Monsod called for 4 of his men and relayed his instructions, saying to arrest notorious
criminal and escaped convict, Balagtas, whether dead or alive
 One of the men is appellant Corporal Galanta
 The same instruction was given to Oanis by the Provincial Inspector
 Oanis knew the whereabouts of Irene and since they found no one else to guide the
constabulary soldiers to Irene’s house, Oanis volunteered to go with the party
 When the group reached Irene’s house, Oanis approached Brigida Mallare and asked her where
Irene’s room was
 Brigade pointed out the location and told the men that Irene was sleeping with her paramour
 Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and saw a man sleeping with his
back towards the door where they were
 Both simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers.
 Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and looking at the door
where the shots came, she saw the defendants still firing at him
 It turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious criminal Anselmo
Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour

ISSUE W/N appellants be responsible for the death of Tecson

RULING YES. Appellants are found guilty of murder

 Appellants defended themselves with mistake of fact.

Mistake of Fact

 A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused an injury to another. He is not,
however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.

Requisites:

 That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
  That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
 That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

One example when a mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness is when the accused has no ample
time or opportunity to make a further inquiry since he is being pressed by the circumstances to act
immediately. Believed he was in imminent danger and therefore, had to act immediately

 But, in the case at bar, there are no circumstances that would warrant them to immediate
action
 Appellants could have made an inquiry as to who he was and even conduct a bloodless arrest if
efforts were made

Under Art 11 of the RPC. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

2 requisites:

 Offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right

 The injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such
a duty

Only the first requisite is fulfilled. Their actions have exceeded in the fulfillment of such a duty by killing
the victim. Only instruction was to arrest Balagtas or get him dead or alive if he resists.