US VS., Ah Chong - Case Digest

THE UNITED STATE, vs.
AH CHONG
G.R. No. L-5272; March 19, 1910
Facts of the Case
The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at “Officers’ quarters, No. 27,” Fort McKinley,
Rizal Province. The deceased-victim, Pascual Gualberto, was employed also as a house boy or muchacho.
The said quarter was a detached house and no one slept in the house except the two servants, who jointly
occupied a small room toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch
running along the side of the building, by which communication was had with the other part of the house.
This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height. The door of
the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock, and occupants, as a measure of security, had
attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this
somewhat insecure means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair. In the room there was but
one small window, which, like the door, opened on the porch. Aside from the door and window, there
were no other openings of any kind in the room.
The deceased and the accused, who roomed together and who appear to have on friendly and
amicable terms had an understanding that when either of them returned at night, he should knock at the
door and acquaint his companion with his identity because there had been several robberies in Fort
McKinley, one of which took place in a house in which the defendant was employed as cook. Due to these
repeated robberies, defendant kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 o'clock, 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. Due to the heavy growth
of vines along the front of the porch, the room was very dark, and 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.”
At that moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which had been placed
against the door. In the darkness and confusion the defendant 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, Pascual. Pascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the
steps in a desperately wounded condition, followed by the defendant, who immediately recognized him
in the moonlight. Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers who slept in the next house
and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination. At the trial, defendant admitted that
he killed his roommate, Pascual Gualberto, but 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.
The trial court decided against the defendant and found him guilty of simple homicide, with
extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty
prescribed by law.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court correctly decided the case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that although self-defense was not present in the instant case because
the elements of the same were not present, defendant is still exempt from criminal liability by reason of
a mistake as to the facts.
The Supreme Court ruled that in criminal prosecution, malice or criminal intent is an essential
element or ingredient of the crime as provided for in Article 1 of the Penal Code which state that “crimes
or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law. Acts and omissions punished by law
are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the contrary shall appear. A 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.”
In broader terms, according to the High Court, ignorance or mistake of fact, which is sufficient to
disprove a particular intent, which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged, the
same ignorance or mistake cancels the presumption of intent and will result for an acquittal except in
those cases where there were negligence on the part of the defendant.
According to the High Court, the word “voluntary” as used in the article is a free, intelligent,
and intentional act. This means that essence of an offense is the wrongful intent and without which the
crime cannot exists.
The Supreme Court ruled that after a careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at
bar, it is clear that defendant struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the
intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in
imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court applied the doctrines, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea” (the act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so) and “Actus me incito factus non
est meus actus,” (an act done by me against my will is not my act) coupled with the doctrine that though,
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith, it is also a rule that “ignorantia facti
excusat” (Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is, in all cases of supposed offense, a sufficient excuse).
In view of these, according to the Supreme Court, in the instant case, the defendant 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; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been
wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he cannot be said to have been guilty
of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means
adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and
his property and the property under his charge.
Hence, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court was reversed, and
the defendant was acquitted of the crime with which he is charged.

US VS., Ah Chong - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

US VS., Ah Chong - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US VS., Ah Chong - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNITED STATE, vs.

Facts of the Case

You might also like