Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so.

FACTS:

The defendant Ah Chong worked as a cooked while the deceased Pascual Gilberto who was a house boy.
The two of them shared a room having a door with no permanent lock. As a means of securing it, a chair
was placed against the door. At around 10 in the evening, Ah Chong who was sleeping was awakened by
someone trying to forcefully open the door. He called twice but there was no response. Fearing that the
intruder might be a thief, Ah Chong took his knife and struck the intruder when it entered the room. It
turned out that the said intruder was his roommate Pascual. Despite his plea of self-defense, said
defendant was found guilty with homicide by the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant by reason of mistake of facts criminally liable.

RULING:

NO. The Court held that there is no criminal liability when one commits an offense or act due to
ignorance of facts provided that it was not due to negligence or bad faith. Such ignorance of the fact is
sufficient to negative the particular intent which under the law, is an essential element to the crime of
murder charged cancels the presumption of intent and works for an acquittal. In the case, the defendant
struck the fatal blow on the belief that the intruder was a robber, on which his life and property was in
danger. It is clear that he acted in good faith without negligence and without any criminal intent in
exercising his right to self-defense. There can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind. The
author of the Penal Code deemed criminal intent or malice to be an essential element of the various
crimes and misdemeanors. It is a principle that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent, without
which it cannot exist. In other words, punishment is the sequence of wickedness, without which it
cannot be. And neither in philosophical speculation nor in religious or moral sentiment would any
people in any age allow that a man should be deemed guilty unless his mind was so. This doctrine
confirmed by the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in which the act itself does not make a
man guilty unless his intention were so. Thus, the Court held that the defendant should be acquitted.