US VS. AH CHONG (G.R. NO. 5272.

MARCH 19, 1910)

Subject: Honest mistake of fact

Facts:
- Ah Chong was employed as a cook at "Officers’ quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal
Province, and at the same place Pascual Gualberto, deceased, was employed as a house boy.
They usually slept in the same room.
- On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 o'clock, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by
someone trying to open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is
there?" He received no answer and feared that the intruder was a robber, leaped to his feet
and called out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you."
- At the moment he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door. Believing
that he was being attacked, Ah Chong seized a kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow
and struck the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. He died from the wound
the following day.
- Ah Chong was charged with the crime of murder and sentenced to six years and one day
-
Issue: Whether or not Ah Chong can be held criminally responsible for the crime of murder

Ratio: No. Ah Chong is not liable for the crime of murder.

- There is no criminal liability because the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to
negligence or bad faith. 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.

PEOPLE VS. OANIS (G.R. No. 47722. July 27, 1943)

Subject: Honest mistake of fact

Facts:
- In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, Chief of Police of Cabanatuan Antonio Oanis and
Corporal Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and an
escaped convict, and, if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
- Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and on seeing a man sleeping
with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him
with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his
identity. 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.
- Defendants Oanis and Galanta were charged with the crime of murder.

Issue: Whether or not Oanis and Galanta can be held criminally responsible for the crime of murder

Ratio: Yes. Oanis and Galanta are liable for the crime of murder.
- In support of the theory of non-liability by reason of honest mistake of fact, the appellants
relied on the case of US vs. Ah Chong. The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies
only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. In the Ah Chong case,
defendant was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, "who is
there," but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed
and called out again, "if you enter the room I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he
was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door and believing that he was then
being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who
turned out to be his roommate.
- There is an innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault or carelessness because the
accused, having no time or opportunity to make a further inquiry, and being pressed by
circumstances to act immediately, had no alternative but to take the facts as they then
appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing.
- In the instant case, appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to
immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and
 opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a
bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was
unarmed, according to one eyewitness.

PEOPLE VS. BAYAMBAO (G.R. No. 29481. October 31, 1928)

Subject: Honest mistake of fact

Facts:
- While the wife of Pambaya Bayambao was cooking, she called out to him saying, “Pambaya,
Pambaya, someone has thrown a stone at the house.” He took my revolver and went down.
- Having gone under the house, he looked around, but did not see anybody; however, he did
not go far because he was alone.
- Then, while he was near the staircase, about to ascend, he heard a noise and saw a black
figure that rushed at him, with hands lifted up as if to strike him, and becoming frightened, he
fired at it.
- Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime of murder of his brother-in-law.

Issue: Whether or not Bayambao can be held criminally responsible for the crime of murder

Ratio: No. Bayambao is not liable for the crime of murder.

- Bayambao acted from the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an ill at least equal in gravity, in
the belief that the deceased was a malefactor who attacked him with a dagger in hand, and for
this reason, he was guilty of no crime and is exempt from criminal liability.

CUENCA VS. PEOPLE (G.R. No. L-27586. June 26, 1970)

Subject: Malum Prohibitum

Facts:
- Ernesto Cuenca was a special watchman and security guard of the Bataan Veterans Security
Agency. It was the practice in the agency that when the security guards reported for work,
they were provided with firearms and ammunition, which they would return after their duty.
- On January 3, 1963, the accused was detailed at the Philippine Savings Bank as security
guard. He was wearing the uniform of the agency and was armed with a pistol, Ithaca, .45 cal.
- Pat. Paul Sabate arrested the accused for illegal possession of the said firearm and
ammunition. When asked to produce his license to possess the firearm and ammunition, the
accused told him that he was a special watchman and security guard of the Bataan Veterans
Security Agency to which the firearm and ammunition belonged, and the license to possess
the same was in the office of the agency.
- The accused told Pat. Sabate that the owner of the agency was one Mr. Forbes, who had the
license for the said firearm and ammunition. It appears that the agency has no license to
possess the firearm and ammunition; hence, neither the accused nor the agency is a licensed
possessor of said firearm and ammunition. The accused claimed that he was made to believe
in the agency that Mr. Forbes had license to possess them.
- Cuenca was charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms.

Issue: Whether or not Cuenca can be held criminally responsible for the crime of illegal possession of
firearms

Ratio: No. Cuenca is not liable for the crime of illegal possession of firearms
- The reason is that appellant was entitled to assume that his employer had the requisite license
to possess said firearm and ammunitions and to turn them over to him while he was on duty
as one of the regular security guards of the Bataan Veterans Security Agency, the same being
a duly licensed security agency.
- What is more, Jose Forbes had told appellant that the firearm and ammunitions in question
were duly licensed, and, as an employee of the agency, appellant could not be expected to
demand from his employer proof of the veracity of the latter's assertion before relying
thereon.
URBANO VS. IAC (G.R. No. 72964. January 7, 1988)
Subject: Efficient Intervening Cause

Facts:
- At about 8:00 o'clock in the morning of October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano went to
his ricefield at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan. He found the place where he
stored his palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had
overflowed. Urbano went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what happened and there
he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was responsible for
the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano then got
angry and demanded that Javier pay for his soaked palay. A quarrel between them ensued.
- Urbano hacked Javier hitting him on the right palm of his hand, which was used in parrying
the bolo hack. Javier who was then unarmed ran away from Urbano but was overtaken by
Urbano who hacked him again hitting Javier on the left leg with the back portion of said bolo,
causing a swelling on said leg. When Urbano tried to hack and inflict further injury, his
daughter embraced and prevented him from hacking Javier.
- Antonio Erfe, Emilio Erfe, and Felipe Erfe brought Javier to his house about 50 meters away
from where the incident happened. Emilio then went to the house of Barangay Captain
Menardo Soliven but not finding him there, Emilio looked for barrio councilman Felipe Solis
instead. Upon the advice of Solis, the Erfes together with Javier went to the police station of
San Fabian to report the incident. As suggested by Corporal Torio, Javier was brought to a
physician.
- The group went to Dr. Guillermo Padilla, rural health physician of San Fabian, who did not
attend to Javier but instead suggested that they go to Dr. Mario Meneses because Padilla had
no available medicine.
- By way of settlement, Javier submitted himself to a medical treatment at the expense of
Urbano. Urbano promised to pay P700.00 for the medical expenses of Javier.
- The wound was in the ordinary and normal process of healing for almost three weeks. On the
latter part of the third week when the wound has not yet completely healed, Javier went to
work on his tobacco farm with his bare hands from where he contracted tetanus toxins that
infected his wound, which caused his death.
- The heirs of Javier charged Urbano with homicide. The court found the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of homicide. In his defense, Urbano claimed that he cannot be held liable for
Javier’s death because Javier’s act of going to his tobacco farm to work with his bare hands
was an efficient intervening cause.

Issue: Whether or not Urbano can be held criminally responsible for the death of Javier

Held: No. Urbano is not liable for the death of Javier.

- The tetanus toxins were not acquired at the time of the hacking. In fact, due to medical
treatment, the wound was in the ordinary and normal process of healing and would have
completely healed on the fourth week. The deceased himself interrupted this normal and
continuous process of healing by voluntarily working on his tobacco farm with bare hands from
where the tetanus toxins were acquired and infected his wounds which finally caused his
death.
- The wound inflicted by Urbano was not the proximate cause of Javier’s death. The deceased
himself interrupted the ordinary, normal, and continuous process of healing by voluntarily
going to his tobacco plants in order to work by reason of which the wound which was about to
be healed was infected resulting into tetanus which caused the disease.

INTOD VS. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992)
Subject: Factual Impossibility

Facts:
- In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino
Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental
and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter,
Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He
 told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between
them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be
killed.
- At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio
and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez
Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said
room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another city and her home was then
occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the
shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
- Petitioner and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified
that before the five men left the premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and
especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not injured".
- After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. The Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the trial court's decision. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not Intod is guilty of the crime of attempted murder

Held:
- On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Intod is guilty of an impossible crime, having in mind
the social danger and degree of criminality shown by him. Palangpangan’s absence in her
room on the night Intod and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently
impossible. The factual situation in the case at bar present physical impossibility which
rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. Under Article 4, Paragraph 2, such
is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. To uphold the contention of respondent that
the offense was attempted murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening
cause independent of the actor’s will, will render useless under Article 4, which makes a
person criminally liable for an act “which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.” In that case, all
circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident
independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies.