Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

US v. Ah Chong GR No.

L-5272, March 19, 1910

Topic: Felonies – Dolo – Mistake of Fact

Doctrine: There is no criminal liability, provided that the ignorance or mistake of fact
was not due to negligence or bad faith.

Facts:
 The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook in one of the Officers’
quarters at Fort McKinley, Rizal Province. Together living with him in the said
quarters was the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who was employed as a
houseboy.
 There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley prior to the incident thus
prompting the defendant and his roommate to reinforce the flimsy hook used to
lock the door of their room by placing a chair against it. The defendant and the
deceased had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should
knock on the door and say his name.
 On the night of Aug. 14, 1908, Ah Chong, who was alone in his room, was
awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. The defendant
called out twice, asking the identity of the person but heard no answer. Fearing
that the intruder was a robber or a thief, the defendant called out that he would
kill the intruder if he tried to enter. At that moment, the door was forced open and
the defendant was struck first above the knee by the edge of the chair.
 Because of the darkness of the room, the defendant thought he was being hit by
the intruder and tried to defend himself by striking wildly at the intruder using a
common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow.
 It turned out that the said intruder was actually the defendant’s roommate,
Pascual Gualberto. The roommate was brought to the military hospital where he
died from the effects of the wound the following day.

Issue:
WON the defendant was criminally liable for committing a felony. NO.

Held:

Requisites for mistake of fact to be a valid defense:


 that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
 that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful, and
 that the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Had the intruder been a robber as the defendant believed him to be, then Ah Chong
acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent, and would have been wholly
exempt from criminal liability and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of
negligence or recklessness.

Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in
killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which
requires, to justify the act, that there be —
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed,
(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.

As applied in this case:


(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Article  of the Revised Penal
Code, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person
making the defense.

If such ignorance or mistake of facts is sufficient to negative a particular intent, it


destroys the presumption of intent and works an acquittal

The rule does not apply (1) where the circumstances demand a conviction under the
penal provisions governing negligence and (2) in cases where a person voluntarily
committing an act incurs criminal liability even though the act be different from that
which he intended to commit.

The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. There is
an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused,
because, having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed
by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the
facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the
deceased.

Вам также может понравиться