488 PHILIPPINE REPORTS, - Waited States ve. Ah Chong. ‘the heirs at lw and next of kin of Tibarsio Aneta Inthe som ef ne thousand esas (P1000) and to pay the cots ofthis appeal,” So ordered Avalno, ©. J, Parre, ope, Jobson, and Carton, 12 “Defendant convict of robbery with homicds; death penalty imped. (Mo, sem, ane 29,009, ‘Tur Untren Starts, plaintif and applie, vs. AN CHoNG, flefendant and appellant. Jem ac and tne Sas wat hss by, wed Sere “Huey rte mina pace an ually ae the me omy Sete tere eth a ea aed ort rer, longed fro the ad an ein ed tie 2dr bya chal whe ad ay pled aie the or) Dee iotne th Sion a Hishen tne ad Revumiareese. uate hors ed ee ee Reena roaneteteas fo cee on semcnes se ont eS Se See ees eae Be egenapee Beare tent ene a sey hes oo eee Sascha pe ee VoL, 15, MARCH 19, 1910 489 United States ve. Ah Chong Sh pee nietest eetg = ot os Shyer eat eee ee APPEAL trom ajdt of the Court af Fn ntnce eek ee ‘The facts aro stated in the opinion of the court Gibb & Gate, for appeliant. Attorney-General Vtamar, for appele, ceansox, 5. The evidence as to many of the essential and viel facts {in this ease i Limited to tho testimony of the accused hime lf, because rom the very nature of those facts and from ‘circumstances surrounding the incident upon which these proceedings rest, no other evidence as to these facts was avaiable either to the prosecution of to the defense We think, however, that, giving the accased the benef of ‘he doubt as to he weight of the evidence touching those Aetallsof the incldent as to which thee ea be aad fo be ‘any doubt, the following statement af the material fects fislosed by the record may he taken fo be substantially org: ‘Toe defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at “omicers quarters, No.2," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province, and at the same place, Peieudl Gy employed as a house boy OF muchacha, "Offeers quarters No. 27” isa detached howe situated tome 40 meters from the nearost building, and in August, 1903, was eccupled solely as an officers’ mess or eld. No one’ slept in the house except the two servants, wha jointly occupied « small room toward the Tear of the building, she door of which ‘opened upon a nasrow porch running lang the ade of the Dullding, by which communication was had with the other part of tho house. ‘This porch was covered by « heovy srowth of vines Zor ita entire length and height. ‘The door ‘of the room was not furnished with a permanent holt oF Tock, and the occupants, am meashive of sacri, fad at ‘ached a small hook or eateh on the inside of the door and190 PHILIPPINE) REPORTS. United States ve. Ak Chong. er very d twas a robber or-a thief. leaped to his fet he whlch had been placed agi oor fnfletad-by- the porson. who ‘town back Into the room by t door against which it ested Tenfe wen be lo under his p tras hi roommste, Paseusl ‘phind up Pascu's woands long porto the dats ofthe incident just ‘wbfeh tole plase in-a house in which the ‘were in the habit of reinforcing thie somewhat insecure smeans of fastening the door by placing against ita shan nthe room there was but one Amall window, whle, Te ‘the door, opened on the porch, Aside from tvindow, there were io other openings of any Kind inthe ‘On the night ofAugust 14, 1908, sbout 10 o'loc, the defendant, who had retired for the night, was suddenly 7 sas en tt fe Toon. He st up in bed and called out twice, "Who is He heard no answer and was convinced ky the hort at the door that i ws helg pusbed open by someone Bent upon foreing his wa into the oom. , Due to the heyy 7 groeth of vines along the front a ihe porch, the room was the defendant, eaving that the fncruder "if you entar the room, T wl Kill you” At Chat moment struck jast above the knee bythe edge of the chair Tn the ‘and confusion the defendant hough thatthe blow had been oreed the door open, ‘whom he auppoted tobe a burglar, Uhougt in the light of event it js probable that the chair ws siden opening sf the. ‘raninon Hitchen ve defendant suse fut wildly at the intrader who it afterwards turned out, ‘Pascusl-ran out upon the poreh.and fel down-on the step ina desperately weanded, ‘ondtdon followed by the defendant sho immediatly re ‘Gensel Bim in foe moonTight, Seeing that Porc! wet ee ae cat tthe ese who tpt fn he next Tous, No. 23, and van back ta hia roam to secure bandages ‘There had been tevera robberies in Fort McKinley not oor snd all ot moray bed, one of dant. was ‘VoL. 15, MARCH 19, 1810. 41 Tried Sates ve. Ah Chana. Tiopoyed as cok; and a9 defendant alleges, it was because of thane repested robberies he kept a knife under his pilow {or his persona protectin. "The deceased and the acoasea, who roomed together snd who appenr to have beet on frlendly and smnicable terms) Dror 1 the ftalineiden bad an gndetanding that when ‘Ulter returned at ight, he should knoe atthe door aad "Pesca bn Gqonint his companion with ls identity ich Ghe house cary in the evening and gone for a walk. “itn is Sends, Celestia Qulambao and Mariano Thabez, Mans employe at ofcers’ quarters No, 98, the nearost Sonar, ihe mess hall ‘The three retarned from thelr oie about I eelock, and Celestino and Mariano stopped Tihete room st No. 2 Pascual going on to is room at St "Nfew moments after tho pariy separated, Cales- Noid Marian heard cies for acistanee and upon re- {ihe eto No. 27 found Pascual siting on the back steps SHRINE wourded in the stomach, whereupon one of thera fatal wea'No, 28 and called Liettenans Jacobs and Kenly, Tap gnmediatly went tothe ald of the wounded man. "Phe defendant then und there admitted that te hed stabbed his roommate, bot aaid that he did it undsr the was don” beens he fore {impression that Pascal {morsthe door of thelr sleeping room, derite defendant's arin ge explantion of he remake end on nee Pascal sugges ital umes i be tht the Be aa oat igchiet was plying 8 eck on Be bey a ne and sought to frignten him by forcing Chines Fog the foom, netusing 20 ve his ward ot 88 Ms Way io er 16 ace Ab Chong ble that be Tes being sacked by a sober me beng cit Funder aves othith and Pascual emer to the alinry howls, where be ded from We Sedat the wound onthe colin: cy. Se acne wna charged it te ime of assassin: ne een ound ily by the tis court of simplePHILIPPINE REPORTS, Unita States v8. Ak Chong homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years and one day presdio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law. At the trial in the court below the defendant admitted that he killed his roommate, Pascual Gualbert, but insisted that he struc the fatal bowithout any Intent to do a |[wrongtol act, inthe exercise of his lawl right of le. ‘Artic & of the Penal Cade provides that— "The following are vot delinquent and are therefore exempt from citi lability “4, He who acta in defense of his petson or rights, pro vided there are the following attendant eineametances (1) egal ageresion, (2) Reasonable neasity of the means employed to prevent or repel i "(@) Lack of suficient provocation on the patt af the son defending hinselt” « nder these provisions we thik that there ean be 0 ‘doubt that defendant woald be entitled to emplate exer. ‘ion from criminal lability for the desth of the victim of bis tata blow, ifthe Intruder who fread open the door of his room hhed been in fact a dangerots thie of “adron,” ‘as the@@efendant belived him ta be. No one, under such ‘ireumstaness, would doubt the right of the defendant to "sat snd ropol such an Intrusion, and the thief having 4orced open the door notwithstanding defendant's three repeated warning to desist, nd his threat that he would kil ‘he intruder if he persisted in his attempt, it will not be “ questioned that in the darkness of the might, in a smal, oom, with no means of essape, with the thle? advancing ‘on him despite his warnings, dafendant would have been |wholly Justified in using any available weapon to defend Himself from such wn assnut, and in striking promptly, | without walling forthe thet to discover is whereabouts | and deliver th fist blow. VOL 15, ARCH 18, 1910, 498 United States ve. Ak Choma. fe lies Sear don bate an note ttre ion” Sting tet ees ae Tat tte uve nce te a, Ota leo dra een sae ek fat tnd vonng and hereon sored see wane Bes tts iiets secret tase oh he pen ear» “Me gute hectares et iter itt oy sna Soe ea ire oft meals oie aon een facts were as he supposed them to be,“but which would conc cine lis eat ene td pow ch ea erm a Snel st Sy he gan we a ee but one angwer, and‘we hold that under such circumstances a sina ypc sa te themed rans miata aes TN a he gence or bad faith, “s terrace omic a ut ot sah ‘tert tine rine eae ot tease epee crea at ih des ets arn re Seagate naa ee eee Same soe felt me Ree ee om proving ceait agate ‘hee he orn en Mage cnt Eni air tea soe ee fen thngh be dtretere a See ees omit Spleen Be Bled halen Ci Layee tbs nee edt Se °8, Bote hp Bs Coane Se hee aePHILIPPINE, REPORTS. Tritt Satie vs, Ah Chana. Yates ve. Poople, 82 N.Y. 609; Isham vs. State, 88 218; Commonwealth ve. Rogers, 7 Bet, 600) ‘The guneral proposition thus sated hardly admits of dis feusion, and the onks-avestion worthy of consideration is whether ‘minal intent isan esental element ‘rims of homicide and asresination a= defined and penalized in the Penel Code. Te has been said that since the defnitions there given of these as well as most other erimer end offenses therein defined, Jo_ aot iheverime-or oMegee mia De comme With mals oF ‘Sis etna nt ore trae hc aay Be Bl, {minaly TaN, te commision ofthe acts at ot the ‘ations diinitionssobjests the sear to tepid fried therein, unles e apRenne HE NE {iabiliy under one oF otter of The ai ‘Bt wile ‘fis true thet eomarary to the goneral rule of legislative fnaetment in the United States, the definitions of erimes fand offenses as set out in the Penal Code rarely contain provlolonsexpyeasly desiring that malice or criminal i= feat Is an easental Ingredient of the erime, Actertheless, Alcgte that allce, oF criminal intent in some form, Tax sta rete of al ‘enses thers dofined a Wie aisence of exprets provisions modifving the general rule, sueh as are those iouching_liailiy_neenting from saute Heglgently or improdently committe, and acts done hy one voluntarily commiting a crime of misdemeanor, ‘where the act commited Ie diferent trom that which he Intended to commit. [And itis to be observed that even ‘hete exceptions are more apparent than real for “There fn litle distinction, except in degree, between a wil to €0 ‘ wrongful thing and indiference whether its done or not. ‘Therefore carelessness is criminal, and within limits supe ples the place of the affrmative eriminal intent” (Bishop's New Criminal Law, vol 1,8 818) an, again, "There is ie eer ar ae a ee ey VoL. 18, MARCH 19, 1010, Tited Staten vs . Ah Chong. aitcdias Same eee we ari! os nti Sia cena men ins ‘had intended to commult.’* ‘het wh Be Se Sy cit ede Sareea eee i nce nthe ord Sedna acy Saket Penal, vol. 1, p. 74.) ‘ “es Viada, while insisting that the absence of intention to commit the erime can only be sid to exempe from exinal498 PHILIPPINE REPORTS. Tinied States es Ab Chana Fesponsitity when the ack which was actualy ntended qo be done wae init wll ong and nthe sees at bevlgence or imprudene, nevertheless admits and rp: ‘ives n hi dlacasion of he provisions of ths ate semen, Wat v0, 18) ANd avo have town Sve the exeepons insted tpon by Vindn ate more ap- parent then ea. Sivela indicating the doctrine heen ld dow, ays “in fact it ie suient to remember the fat tc which declares thet where Unere bo intention tere Toerime = 7" to order to aim, witout fer of ‘stake, that under our ence thre ean Beno ere there ten act an act nth mst al within the sphere of eles Af there ino moral injury” (Vol 2, The Criminal Law, fale 169) Vand to the sane effect are varousdacson ofthe m- preme court of Spi, sor example ns enone Bay iyo in which fide ee of the following lngsage itis necessary that this act order 10 conte a crim, iveive al te male which tv supposed from the Sheri of the wil ant an intent to enue fhe IJOR7 ‘thin maybe te ec ofthe erie" "And again ina ontence of arch 16,189 whorl it dela that “considering tat, whatever may be the ciel eftecta of the iron of ia three sons made by the Splint inthe esl rxisty and In the parochial chure, {re can be no crime because of Uh ek of the nse Slement or criminal intention, whith characterise very tein or omisson ponshed hy ws nor se uth af criminal netgenee™ "And fo the me eet init sentence of December 20, 106 mae un of the following lengua: ne Sate Ssitering shat the moral element of the crime, that i, tnt er ree of thelr absence n fhe com pssign ofan act dened and punished ty lw as rina, Iepot a necesary question of fact submited to the 6X Chutve Judgment sod Gcean ofthe til eure” VOL. 15, MARCH 19, 1910, 49 United States vs, Ak Chong. ‘That the author of the Penal Code deemed erininel in. tent or malice to be an eszental element of the vatious crimes and misdemeanors therein defined becomes lear alse from an examinatin of the provisions of article 53, whieh ares follows “eho shall eeuta through rsa neliene an at that if done with malic, would contintes save chon ‘hal be punished vith the peat of orto seaports taxi degree, fo pnw costal ine inmate deers and with eres mayo ine minimum and mel deers fh const a es pea rte ie ‘who in vidation of the reglativan shall commit a crime troah tingle Smpradene or nugigonce sal eur She peat farts mayer mest en “in the application of thee pesto th courts sal pro- coud acing to thelr diaeretion witout ein subject {othe mies peered in are “The provisions thi rile all ot bo applnble the pana preset for tho sree sea og Wea tha {hase mall he fost puregaph there, t whet ace Ce coarn sappy tenn oe therlo x the degree ‘heh they may condor proper ‘The word male” i thi arte ie manifest sob- stantial equiva to tho more Scent tye" and the diet interence trom ita poion Itt comnts Sion of the acts sotemlatad Cerin nthe thee oF alice (criminal tnt), eslgene, asd fmprodmcn, en "ot moon any ern fait the cor ‘iowa iy a ed ar of th Pea ode weal seem ‘n npproxinee in meaning he weed © “ilitul” weaned in English and American statutes 0 hese ignite form of eiminal intent. Te han een eid het hile th word elifat” sometimes mean ie ere that Intentoaiy orden, st fs more freq ender soo to extend ie frther and approrimae te ica of the mide kind of egal malice; tt sis an498 PHILIPPINE REPORTS, United Sater ve, Ah Chong, vil intent without jute encuse/ Tn one case Hv wah {ald to mean, as explayed In © statute in etemplation ‘rantoniy" of “luslemiy"in anther, “thot reson sie grounds ty tolee the thing npful” "And Shaw, 4, one ani that ordinary tne n Hate i mene "aol amerely ‘voluntarily’ but with ad ppoee a ohar wordy corrupt”. Ty English and the American tates tang Srey ma” tay" nd mae forethought” ‘ae words Indeting anterh_ move peer technical than “wif” or “wiialy bat the diference Tetoven them is not grat;” the word “malice” not often Jing understood fo reaue general malevlene toward 8 atlelar individual, and signifying rather the imset from ‘SHG owe ay una! and injurious ommited we ut legal fantieaton. (Bishops Now Crinial Law, a {cen d28 and $2 and eves eed) But even inthe abeence of expres words in s stata, seitng oat a endition inthe danition of n crime that Be coment "voluntary "willy ntoury” th alice aforethough,” or in one ofthe various mes en. cally construed to imply terial Sntent, we think that Eng am aed pincer eu ‘hat with the rare exceptions betelnatter mentioned consitate a crime evil intent mt combine with am ack Hr Bishop, who suport his positon with nomerody et ‘ona from the decided case, tus forcefully presents ths deat “Inno one thing doe ertnina orsprudence der more ‘om li tha in hore a othe intents Tn eontroversea Ietween private partis the gu anno with whieh thing svas done is sometimes Important, ve always; but crime ree minal mind, So that ‘ether can be no erin, lage of all witinat an evil ‘ickednees, without which can ot be. "And Rete It Dhilsoplclopecuntion nor in igus oral entinent ‘would aay people in any age allow that 8 man should be VOL. 15, MARCH 19, 1910, United Sites os. Ab Chong. ‘eemed guilty unless ie mind war #0. ie therefore « Drincplo of var lege system, as probaly it in of ery Ene, at We ence ofan offense wrong intent, Srithout which i cannot exit We nd this doctrine com. Tenet by Lage mazins —The alent wide of the law, equally with the moter, a Gacton this subjecTeemmeauenty es supled fous auch marina Actus non fact rum Iie mee at rn, "he st He dows nt make aman gully Us his intention were 407 Act me toto farts nom (st meus aca an ace done ty oe against my wil fe not tny ast and ehers of tho ike aor. thi a ust al, Criminal jloprudence dies from cv So als "Boalt a orl etme uch he hn sBy referene to fe Infenion, we inate or ercuate others or ourselves tgithouDany respect to the happiness tx misery actually proces. Lat the result of a action fe what k may, we hold a man goity imply on te ground tf tention; onthe ame rou, we bold him non? ‘The eam Judgoent of mankind kepe this dctin among fer Jewel, In times of excitement, when vengeance fas tte pace of justice, every guard around the imocert own, Bat with th Felsen of reson comes the publle fevce tat where the mind ls pare be who ders In nt Trem is neghbors dos notofend And— Min the epomancoos judgment whieh erin frm the tue given by God fo man, noone denna another to {nurvepunthmentforrbet hed from aa upieht mind, Geuiuts of every form of evls_ And whenever person Sia to efter & purisment whist be commen emt ol io fa rots sn a a mac an 1 eget him the beat of the raver. ‘ven infancy tea sponta pleads the War of Ua nent ste cation of what has the eppecreice cf wrong, vith the toot cnfdence thatthe et rth seeded, wil SSccpled ar goods Now thse fain are only the volx ff ature tering ooe of her emuable truths TePHILIPPINE REPORTS. Thited Stee vs. Ak Chore then the doctrine of the law, superior to all other doctrines, Icaiose frst in nature from which the la itself proceeds, ‘that no man toe punish «examina unless is intent le'wrong.”” (Bishog's New Criminal Lar, vo. 1 ses. 286, 102900) Compallad by necassts"the great master ofall things” su apparsnt departure vi this doctrine of atrast justice ‘sults from the adoption of the arbitrary rue that Igno- Yontiajure'non exovee! ("ignorance-of the awe 20 ‘nan’, swishout wien josie could not be administered In tur ifbunala; and complied also by the same doteine of feooesity, the courts have recogaTead he po legit to of fertain ats and Yo make their cimmlssion criminal with- fut regard to the infet of the doer. Without discussing these exeptionalensce at length, iti euleient her to say thatthe courte have always held that unlese the intention fof the lawmaker to make the commlstion af corain acts Criminal without regard to the intent of the doer ix cleat land beyand question the statute will not be s0 construed (aes ited in ye, vol. 12, p. 168, notes 76 and 77); and the rule that ignorance ofthe law excuses no man has been ‘aid not tobe teal departure from the law's fundamental principle that crime exists only where the mind is at Zeult, because “the evil purpose need not be to break the la, and iE sulioes If tla impiy to do the thing which the lew in fact forbids." (Bishop's New Criminal Lav, see. 800, and cases cited) Bat, howover this may be, there is no technical rule, and no pretting necessity therefor, roquiring mistake in fact {0 be dealt with otherwise than in strict accord with the principles of abstract justice, On the contrary, the maxim here is Ignovantia fat! exenant ("Ignorance or mistake in point of fact iin all cases of supposed ofente, a auiient se). (Brown's Leg. Bas, 24 ey 190) Je ‘vl intent tin general inseparable eloment in sexy erime, any rach mistake of fact as shows the act ‘ominlitad to have proceeded from no sort of evil in the VOL. 15, MARCH 19, 1910. Tried Stee ve AN Chon. anind necssariy relieves the score eri! lly, privided liars: there Daan as lad dows by Baron Parke, "The pul of the sceuted must depend on the eiearmtantes ge they appear to him? (Rog. Thurbors, 1 Den. ©. Cy S877 Pe ov Anderson, 44 Cal, 85; P. ve, Lamb, Gh Barby 842; Yates ‘tw P, 32 N, Y, 609; Patterson va, Py 48 Bard, #25; Reg. te, Cohen, 8 Cox C. C, dt} P. ce files, 55 Caly 207, 200; Nally 06.8, 28 Tex. Ap, 887.) That isto ay, the ques ‘on as to whether he honestly, in good faith, end without fault or negtigance fel Into the mistake it #o-be determined 8 thoy appeared to kim a the time viade, and the fect Which Th wit ight rearonably be expected to Jbeve on his mind, in forming the intent, criminal or other ‘wis, pan whieh be ated 1, in language not amcommon in tho cases, one has ‘teasonable cause to Deliove the existence of facts which Wil Justify a klline—or, in terme more niely tn actord with ‘the principles on which the rule ie founded, if i fast oe ‘ulltiss of the homicide; though he mistook the fete, ead fo the life of an tanocent person Is Unfortunately” ex- tinguished. In other word, and wit reference ta the right of self-defense and the not quite harmonieus authorities fs the doctrine of reasin and suisientiy sustained in ad- Judisstion, that notwithstanding some decisions apparently ‘adverse, whenever man undertaken self-defense, be is / Justied in acting an the fats as they appear to RS TE7~ ‘without Zealt or carelessness, eis misled concerning then ‘and defends himeelf correctiy according to. whut he thus Supposes the fects tobe the law wil ot puna him though they are in truth otherwise, and he has realy no oteason for the extreme measure.” (Hishop's New Criminal Law, ‘ne, 905, and lange array of eases thee ted.) ‘The common iuetratian in the American and English textbook of the application of thia Tule ls the case where 2 man, masked and cagulsed as a footpad, st night andPHILIPPINE REPORTS. United State es. Ak Chong. ‘on lonely road, “holds up” his frend in a pleit of mise hie, and with leveled pistol demands his maney or his life, ‘ot is Killed by bis frend under the mistaken belief thet ‘the attack isa real one, thatthe pistol leveled ahs head is loaded, and hat his life and property are in. imminent anger atthe hands of the aggresor. No one will dosbt ‘hat If che Zacta were such asthe slayer Beloved thatn to be ho would be innocent of the commision of any crime end ‘wholly exempt from eximinal lability, although if he knew ‘he veal state ofthe facts when he took he ite of hie frend he would undoubtedly be guilty of the crime of homfelde or scanalnaton.{ Under auch circumstances proof of his ine Docent mltait“of the fate overcomes the presumption of tualiee or criminal intent, and (since mali or criminal Intent is @ necestary ingredient af the “act punishod by law” in eases of homicide or assassination) overcomes at ‘the same time the presumption established in atile | of ‘the endo, that the "act punizhed by Yaw" was commlted “voluntely.” "Parsons, C.J n the Massachusetts cout, one sald “If the party king had reasonable grounds for blioving ‘hatte person slain had a felonioge design againet him, and inder that supposition kil him, although it should ffterwards appear that there was no each design, it wil tot be murder, but t will be either manelauehter oF ex tueable homfide, according to the degree of eaution used find the probable grounds of such belief” (Charge ta the rand jury in Seltrdge’s case, Whart, Hom, 417, 418, Llové’s report ofthe ease, 7) Tn this ante, Parker, J, charging the petit juny, enforced the doctrine ne foo “A; in the pnceablo pursult of his ears, oes B rushing epi tower him, with an otstrstehed arm and a pistol ‘in his hand, and sing violent mensors against his Ife at bo advances. " Having appronched near enough in th same attitude A, who hus e club in his hand, strikes 3 over the had before ort the instant th pistol is discharred; and cf the wound B dice, It turns ott the pstal was loaded VoL. 15, MARCH 18, 1910, United Staten ve, Ah Chong, ‘with powder only, nd that the real design of B was oni to forrfy A. Willany reasonable man sty that Als mor® triminal than he would have been if there hed been a alle in the pistol? ‘These who hold such doctrine must require ‘hata man so attacked mus, before he strikes the asaflan’, stop and ascertain how the pista iv loaded doctrine Which would entirely take away te ossentil right of self. defense. And when Its considered that the jury Who tty fhe cause, and not the party kiling, are to judge of the reasonable grounds of his apprehenslon, no danger eas be ‘supposed to fow from this prlacple”” (Liyd's Rep» 180) ‘To the same elect axe various decisions of the supreme court of Span, ete by Vieda, a few of which are here set ‘out In fall because tho facts ate somewhat analogous ‘hose inthe ease at bar. ““qussrion TIL. When itis shown that the accused was sitting at his hearth, st night, in empany only of his wite Without other light than thet refteted fom the fie, and thatthe man with his back to the door wae attending to the ire, there suddenly entered a person whom he not ste or know, who struck hi ane or Evo blows, producing ® contusion ‘on the shoulder, boeause of whith Be turned, seized the person and took from him the stice with which he tad undoubtedly been strick, and gave the arknown Dereon a biow, Knocking him to the floor, and afterwards Striking him atother blow on the hea, lenving the unknown Jbing on the floor, and left the heute. Te turned out the lnknown person was his fathernlew, fo whom he ne Aleve assistance as sion he Irarned ie Sdetiy, aad who died in about six days in ennsequence of cerebral congestion resulting from the bow. The aceised, who eanfested the Taets, had always guetained pleasant relations ‘with is fethern-law, whom he visited dating his slehness, cero trating great grit over the ooearmenes, Shall he be coe sidered free from criminal responebllity, as having acted ‘in self-defense, with all the eircamitances rested in pare raph 4, artile 8 of the Poual Code? The criminal braze Of the Audiencia of Valladlid found that he waa an legs)PHILIPPINE REPORTS. United States v2, Ah Chong. sggrcsor, without eufilent provocation, and that there Ald not exist rational neceasity for the employment of the force used, and in accordance with articles 49 and 87 of the Penal Code condemned him to brenty months of Im prisonment, with acessory penalty and costs. Upon appeal by the accused, he was aciuitted by the supreme court, tnder the following sentence: “Considering, frm the fects ound by the sentaneo to have bien proven, thatthe aceaeed ‘was surprised trom behind, at night in his howe beside his wife who was nursing her child, waa attacked, streck, and beaten, without being able to distinguish the person of persis atiacking, nor the instruments with whieh they might have exceuied their eriminal intent, because of the {ect that the attack vee made from behind an becaase there was no other than fire it inthe room, and éonsider- Ing that In such a situation and when the acs executed demonstrated that they might endanger his exttnce, nd possibly that of his wife and child, mone especially becaase his assailant was unkown, he should have defended hms, snd-in doing a0 with the stme ste with whieh ho was ‘tacked, he did no! exceed the limit of sel-dstense, ner Aid house meana which were not rationally necessary, pa ‘eulery because the instrument with which he klled was “the ane which he took from his asian, and was capable of producing death, and in the dareets of the house and ‘the emsternation which naturally resulted fom rach strong fageresion, It was not given him t know or dstingiah ‘whether there ‘was one or mote aatallats, nor he seme ‘which they might bear, nr that which they might cor lish, and considering that the lower court dl no! find ‘rom tho accepted facts that thare existed rational necessity for the means employed, and that it did not apply pate raph 4 of article ofthe Penal Cade, it erred, ete! (Sen fence of supreme court of Spain, February’ 28, 1876) (Wiada, Vel p- 268.) “QuterIow XIX. A porson returning, at night, to his house, which was situated in a retired part of the sity, Upon striving at point where there waa no light, heard VOL. 15, MARCH 19,1900. United Sates ve Ab Chong. {he voice of man, at « ditance of some 8 paces aaying ‘Face down, hand over your money” beeause ef which, and almost at the same mument, he fired two shots from his pistol, distinguishing immediately the woice of ons of he eiende (who had before almltted a diferent volo) saying, “Oh! thay have lled mo’ and hastening to his asstance, finding the body lying apon the ground, ho crod, ‘Miguel, Migual, speak, for God's sake, or Tam ruined” realizing ‘hat he had been the victim ofa joke, and not rocivng a reply, and observing that his frend was a corpse, ke retired rom the pass. Shull he be declared exempt in to from responalbilty a8 the auther of this homicide, as having ‘ted in Jush sel-defense under the cireumstances defined In paragraph 4 article Penal Code? The criminal branch of the Aulencia of Malage did not oo find, but anly found In favor of the accused two of the requists of sui article, ‘but not that ofthe reasonableness ofthe means employed to repel the atlack, and, therfore, condemned the accused to ight years and one day of prisiin mayor, ete. Tho su. preme eosrt neqitted the aceteed on hie appeal frm this fentence, holding thatthe accused was scting under a usti- fable and excusable mlsiake of fact as to the identity of the person calling to him, and that under the elreunstances, ‘tho darkness and remoteness, ef, the means employed were rational and the shooting justfable. (Sentence supreme ‘curt, Mavch 17, 1885.)" (Vind, Val. I. p. 198.) "qussTx VI. The owner of a mil situated in a remote spot i awakened, at night, by a large stone thrown against Tis Wwindow—at this, be puta his head out of the window ‘and ingultes what Is wanted, and is answered ‘the delivery ‘of allof histone, otherwise hls house would be bare — brcnio of whith and sbservng in an alley adjacet to the ‘mill four individuals, one of Wwhom addressed him vith Blasphemy, he fred hie pistol atone of the men, who, on the next storing ws founé dead on the sume apes Shall this man be declared exompt from criminal respeosiblity fa having acted in jist self-defense wit all of the re- ‘Qusities of law? The criminal branch ofthe Auclincia of508 PHILIPPINE REPORTS. Tried Stater ve. Ah Chong ‘Zaraavaa finds that there existed in favor of the accused ‘majority of the requisites tg exempt bim from criminal esponsibility, but not that of reasonable neseesity for the means, employed, and condemned the accused to twelve ‘months of prision correciona forthe homieide committed Upon appeal, the rapreme court acquitted the condemed, finding thatthe aceave, fring atthe malefacors, who fateecked his mill at night Ina remote spt by threatoning robbery and inosndiarm, was acting in jst sel-defense ‘of his person, property, and family, (Sentence of May 23, 1877)" (1 Viada, p. 128) “earful examination ofthe facts x dielosed in the ease at bar convinces tx thet the defendant Chinaman struck ‘he fatal blow alloed in the information in the firm bell ‘hat the intruder ‘who forced open the door of his sleeping room wan a thief, from those aseault he was Sn immien Deri, both of his life and of his property and of the prop- xty commited to his chaeze; thet in view of all the elt ‘cumstances, na thor most have presented themazives tothe ‘Sefendant at the time, he acted In good faith, without ralig ax crlnial intent, in tho Bel that teas doing ‘ho more than exorelaing Bis Tegitimate right of welf-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them Behe woald have been Wholly exert from criminal Liability en account ff his aet; and that he ean not be aid to have been guilty Bt negligence or recklessness or even caeletaneat In “alin into hie mistake aa to the fasts, or in the means adopted ‘by him 10 defend himaelf from the imminent danger which he beloved threatened hi person and his property and the property under his charge ‘The jadgment of convietion and the sentence imposed by the trial eourt should be reversed, abd the defendant fequitted of the crime with which be Is charged and his ball bond exonerated, with the cots of both Instances do felo. So ordered. ‘ohnson, Moreland, nd Eat, 3, cone. “arian, C1, and Mape, J, disse. VOU 16, MARCH 16, 1910 cor nied Stata or, Pou To Chin ‘Tonnes, J, dieentng ‘The writer, with due respec to the opinion of the majority of the court, believes that, according to the merits of the cate, the erie of homelde by recess negligence, defined ‘and punlsied in article 568 of the Penal Code, wa comt- ‘ited, Inasmuch 29 the vietim ‘wee willy (cotenariae ‘ment) Kile, and wile the act was done without malice for criminal intent Tt was, however, executed with Teal far the acts committed by the deecased cOuld ‘the aggresion by the defendant under the trroBéous belief of tho pare of the aeevsedtist the person ‘bo asiaulisd im wae a maleactar; the eafendant ero ore ineurred responsibility in altacing with a bf the Derton who wae actioned to enter eaid reom, "without any Justiiale motive. Ty reacon of the ature of the eime committed, in the ‘opinion of the undersigned the accused should be sentenced tothe penalty of one year and one month af prieién eorveo- ‘ional, 10 euler the accessory penalties provided in article brand to pay an Indemnity of 1,000 to the helre of the ‘eoaated, withthe costs of both instances, thereby reversing the Judzment appealed from, Judgment revered; defendant acquitted. (oe 221, ace 3, 20109 ‘Tne UNITED Starts, plaintiT and appelle, v6, PAY Te (Cu, defendant and eppeliant. ‘eum by one Lim CH Alinn fr favor of Ong Chik Now and Stewed br she. dhendan, opm the Sank f whieh doesent {Bone ndonert Wit the excep of St ofthe dfendnty al ‘tee mums are tts The alge Gat vs don eld lr Getendant to Catv, the posting ies, fr 590. The