G.R. No.

L-5272 March 19, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.

Topic: Mistake of Fact, Criminal Intent (Criminal Intent)

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 and 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 self-defense. 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.

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