Art. 4. “Where there is malice, there is no negligence” 1. People vs Guillen 2. US vs AH CHONG Defendant Ah Chong struck the fatal Since evil intent is in general an blow against his roommate who he inseparable element in every crime, believed was an intruder and a thief any such mistake of fact as shows the after the latter forcible opened the act committed to have proceeded from door of his sleeping room. no sort of evil in the mind necessarily relieves the actor from criminal liability provided always there is no fault or negligence on his part. 3. People vs BAYAMBAO Bayambao was charged with the crime The latter, on that occasion, acted from of murder. He does not deny having the impulse of an uncontrollable fear caused the deceased's death. He of an ill at least equal in gravity, in the alleges, however, that he did it by belief that the deceased was a mistake, believing the malefactor who attacked him with a deceased malefactor who attacked him kampilan or dagger in hand, and for in the dark; he thought the victim was this reason, an outlaw but found out later that it he was guilty of no crime and is exempt was his brother-in-law and so he shot from criminal liability (art. 8, No. 10, him before he could be killed by the Penal Code.) victim. Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith, and this rebuts the presumption of malicious, intent accompanying the act of killing. In an case, this court acquitted the accused 4. US vs BAUTISTA 5. CALDERON vs PEOPLE 6. US vs GUEVARRA 7. People vs PENALOSA The accused were convicted for One cannot be convicted (under article contracting marriage without the 475) when (1902) consent of his or her parents. Marcosa by reason of a mistake of fact there Peñalosa, who believed in good faith does not that she was already 21, was exist the intention to commit the apparently not when she married the crime. codefendant, and that she contracted the marriage without the As to the codefendant, he testifies that consent of her father. he had no suspicion that the woman was a minor especially that she took an oath before the clergyman that she was 21. This sufficies to demonstrate that the defendant acted under a mistake of fact and thus he is not guilty of violting Art. 475.