DOCTRINE: PENAL LAWS MAY EITHER BE MALA IN SE OR MALA PROHIBITA

US (plaintiff-appellee) v. Ah Chong (defendant-appellant) (1910)

Ponente: Carson, J.
GR No. L-5272, March 19, 1910

FACTS:
-Defendant Ah Chong, a cook, was the roommate of Pascual Gualberto
(houseboy/muchacho) at "Officers' quarters No. 27" at Fort McKinley, Rizal Province.
-No. 27 was a detached house and no one slept in it except for the two servants.
Their room was at the rear of the building, and it was not furnished with a permanent
bolt/lock and the occupants had a small hook/catch on the inside of the door and reinforced
it by placing the door against a chair.
-On August 14, 1908, at 10pm, Ah Chong was awakened by someone trying to force
open the door of the room. Ah Chong thought that it was a robber/thief and when the door
opened, he was struck above the knee by the edge of the chair.
-Ah Chong struck out at the intruder, who was his roommate Pascual, with a
common kitchen knife. Pascual was wounded, and Ah Chong recognized him when Pascual
ran out on the porch and fell down the steps. Ah Chong called to his employers who slept in
No. 28 and ran back to his room to bind Pascual's wounds.
-Ah Chong admitted that he stabbed Pascual, but he said he did it under the
impression that Pascual was a "ladron" because he forced open the door of their room,
despite defendant's warnings. Ah Chong was placed under arrest and Pascual was brought
to the military hospital, where he died the next day.
-Ah Chong was charged with the crime of assassination, tried and found guilty by the
trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to 6 year and
1 day presidio mayor.
-At the trial court, the defendant admitted he killed Pascual, but he insisted that he
struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful
right of self-defense.

ISSUE/S:
1) Whether or not one can be held criminally responsible for an act (resulting from a
mistake of fact) for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he
assumed them to be, but which constitute the crime of homicide/assassination if the actor
had know the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act?
2) Whether or not malice or criminal intent is an essential element to homicide and
assassination as defined and penalized in the Penal Code?

HELD & RATIO DECIDENDI:

1) NO. There can be no crime without an evil mind. (Bishop). There is no technical
rule requiring mistake of fact to be dealt with other than the principles of abstract justice.
The act committed to have proceeded from no sort of evil in the mind necessarily relieves
the actor from criminal liability, provided there is no fault or negligence on his part.
2) YES. But Ah Chong, who firmly believed that the intruder to their room was a
thief, acted in good faith without malice or criminal intent, in the belief that he was
exercising his legitimate right of self-defense. If the facts had been as he assumed, he
would not be guilty of negligence, recklessness, or carelessness.

RULING:
1) Decision of the trial court REVERSED. Ah Chong is ACQUITTED of the crime
and his bail bond exonerated.
OTHER NOTES:
-Article 8 of the Penal Code: The ff. are not delinquent and are therefore exempt
from criminal liability:
4 He who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are the
following attendant circumstances:
1) Illegal aggression
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
-Ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negate a particular intent (w/c under
the law, in this case murder/homicide/assassination, is a necessary ingredient of the offense
charged); in short, it "cancels the presumption of intent" and works an acquittal (unless
criminal negligencey ung crime)
- Article 1 of the Penal Code is as follows:
>> Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by
law.
>> Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be
voluntarily unless the contrary shall appear.
>> An person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur
criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that
which he had intended to commit.
-Justice Torres gave a dissenting opinion, classifying the crime as reckless
negligence, "for the acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression by
the defendant under the erroneous belief that Pascual was a thief". Ah Chong incurred
responsibility in attacking Pascual with a knife, without any justifiable motive.