U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) FACTS: The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at Officers quarters.

On the night, the defendant, who had received for the night, was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, Who is there? 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. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out: If you enter the room, I will kill you. He was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open, whom he supposed to be a burglar. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate. The roommate eventually died. ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong is liable for the death of his roommate. HELD: NO. Ah Chong was acquitted. RATIO: The decision of the lower court was reversed. The case was a mistake of fact resulting to self -defense justified under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code where there is (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Had the deceased be a robber as he thought, his actions would not be criminally liable. Some maxims cited: 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; Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed & called out again, If you enter the room I will kill you. But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, & believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife & struck & fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Ratio: Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under A11, par. 1, of the RPC, which requires, to justify the act, that there be: ? unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, ? reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, & ? lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under A11 of the RPC, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making the defense. FACTS: The accused, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in Fort Mckinley and was sharing the house with the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a house boy. The door of the room they were occupying was not furnished with a permanent lock, and as a measure of security, they fasten the door by propping a chair against it. One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of their room.The deceased and the accused had an understanding that when either returned late at night, he should knock at the door and acquaint his companion with his identity. Ah Chong sat up in bed and called out twice, Who is there? but heard no answer. The room was quite dark, and as there had been recent robberies in Fort McKinley, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, he leaped to his feet an d called out. If you enter the room, I will kill you. Suddenly, he was struck by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he was being attacked, he seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow and wildly struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was criminally liable. HELD: No. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice (criminal intent), negligence, and imprudence. In the present case, the accused acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of selfdefense. Had the facts been as he believed them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act. Moreover, the accused cannot be said to have been negligent or reckless as the facts as he saw them threatens his person and his property. Under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, as the ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.