US vs.

Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-5272
Ponente: Carson, J.
Facts:
Ah Chong, a cook employed at Officers Quarters No. 27 in Fort McKinley, lived with
Pascual Gualberto which is a houseboy. Only the two of them lived in the said quarter and
they shared the same room which opened upon a narrow porch at the side of the building.
The porch was heavily covered with vines preventing light from coming in and the door is
locked by means of a hook and by placing a chair against it.
At about 10pm on August 14, 1908, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone
trying to force the door open. He was alone at the room since Pascual left earlier that night
for a walk with his three friends. He heard no answer when he called out twice Who is
there? and was convinced by the noise at the door that it might be a burglar. He leapt to his
feet and called out If you enter the room, I will kill you. He was struck above the knee by
the chair against the door and, since it was dark due to the vines, Ah Chong thought that it
was inflicted by the burglar. He seized a kitchen knife, which he hid under his pillow, and
struck out wildly at the intruder which turned out to be Pascual. He recognized Pascual by
the moonlight and called for help to his employers in No. 27.
Ah Chong admitted that he stabbed Pascual under the impression that he is a burglar.
He insisted that he struck the fatal blow in the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense. He
was charged with assassination and was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide.
He was sentenced 6 years and 1 day.
Doctrine:
Exemptions from Criminal Liability (Art. 8, Penal Code); Elements of a Crime; Acts committed
by mistake of fact
Issue:
Whether or not one can be held criminally liable for acts committed by reason of a mistake
of fact.
Ruling/Ratio Decidendi:
NO. Ah Chong, due to the circumstances he was in, struck a fatal blow as self-defense
because he believed that the intruder is a burglar who poses a threat to his life and his
property. He acted in good faith without malice or criminal intent. Also, he cannot be guilty
of negligence, recklessness or carelessness because his situation prompted him to think that
his life and property is in danger.
As stated by Bishop, 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. (Bishops New Criminal Law,
Sec. 305)
As stated by Carson, C.J., If the party killing had reasonable grounds for believing that the
person slain had a felonious design against him, and under that supposition killed him,
although it should afterwards appear that there was no such design, it will not be murder,
but it will be either manslaughter or excusable homicide, according to the degree of caution
used and the probable grounds of such belief. (Charge to the grand jury in Selfridge's case,
Whart, Hom., 417, 418, Lloyd's report of the case, p.7.)
Notes:
- Pacheco asserts that voluntary act is a free, intelligent and intentional act (no intention, no
crime)

- Viada asserts that in the absence of negligence or imprudence without intention there can
be no crime
- Author of the Penal Code deemed criminal intent and malice to be an essential element of
crimes/misdemeanor
- Malice is substantially equivalent to the words criminal intent
- 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 juris non excusat, "Ignorance of the law excuses no man"