Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Death by digests
Saturday, June 23, 2012 Blog Archive
▼ 2012 (34)
US vs. Ah Chong (Crim1) ▼ June (34)
Shauf v. CA (consti1)
The United States, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ah Chong, defendant-appellant.
Co v. HRET (Re: Citizenship issue only)
[consti1]

En Banc Roa v. Collector of Customs (Consti1)

Amigable v. Cuenca (Consti1)

Carson, March 19, 1910 US v. Ruiz (Consti1)

Malong v. PNR (Consti1)

People v. Echegaray (CRIM1)

Topic: Mental element (Mens rea) - Deliberate intent (Dolo) - Mistake of fact
Magno vs. CA (Crim1)

People vs. Oanis (Crim1)

Facts:
People v. De La Cruz (Crim1)

People of the Philippines v. Carlos

The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, (CRIM1)
Rizal Province
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho Adiong v. COMELEC (CRIM1)

"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest US vs. Guinto (Consti1)
building
Republic vs. Villasor (Consti1)
No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small
room toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow EPG Construction Co. vs. Vigilar
porch running along the side of the building (Consti1)

This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length Republic vs. Feliciano (Consti1)
and height De Los Santos vs. IAC (Consti1)
The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock;
the occupants, as a measure of security, had attached a small hook or Lansang vs. Court of Appeals (Consti1)
catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this Harden vs. Director of Prisons (Crim1)
somewhat insecure means of fastening the door by placing against it a
chair People vs. Ferrer (Crim1)

On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly US vs. Diaz-Conde (Crim1)
awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room People vs. Formigones (Crim1)
He called out twice, "Who is there?"
Gascon vs. Arroyo (Consti1)
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 Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1)
The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you." Commissioner of Public Highways vs.
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant Burgos (Consti...
struck out wildly at the intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be
Republic vs. Nolasco (Consti1)
his roommate Pascual
Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded Republic vs. Judge, Branch XV (Consti1)
Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the next Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)
house and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds
Padilla vs. Dizon (Crim1)
Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day
The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the US vs. Ah Chong (Crim1)
incident, and had an understanding that when either returned at night, he People vs. Puno (Crim1)
should knock that the door and acquaint his companion with his
identity People vs. Talingdan (Crim1)
The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection People v. Rosenthal & Osmena (Crim1)
because of repeated robberies in Fort McKinley
People vs. Silvestre and Atienza (Crim1)
Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the
impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of
their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings
Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating
(mitigating) circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the
minimum penalty prescribed by law
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible
Holding:
 No.
Ratio:
By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he
would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be
(i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable/responsible
because it would be self-defense), but would constitute the crime of homicide or
assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it
was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of homicide/assassination)
The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith
"The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so"
The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it
cannot exist
"The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him."
If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a
killing, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them, he is legally guiltless of
the homicide
The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of
self-defense
He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or
even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.

Posted by Unknown at 9:14 AM

Labels: crim1

1 comment:
IYD'96 December 12, 2016 at 11:46 PM

<3

Reply

Enter your comment...

Comment as: jandusayjervin@ Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.