THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AH CHONG, defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910

IMPORTANT CASE

TOPIC:  MISTAKE OF FACT

GIST: Ah Chong mistaken his roommate to be a robber when one night, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He asked who was there but his roommate didn't answer.  Fearing for his safety, he warned "If you enter the room I will kill you." But at that same moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed as a lock against the door, and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. He was acquitted by mistake of fact.

RATIONALE:

- Mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability because there is no criminal intent.

- (Reyes) In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted 

     (1) a justifying circumstance under Art. 11

     (2) an abso­lutory cause, such as that contemplated in Art. 247, par. 2, or

     (3) an involuntary act. 

-----------------------------

FACTS:

1. Ah  Chong, was employed as a cook  at "Officers' quarters,  No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province, and at the  same place Pascual Gualberto,  deceased, was employed as a house boy or muchacho.

2. On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 o'clock, the defendant, who had  retired for the  night, was  suddenly awakened by someone 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.

3. There had been cases of robbery in their Fort McKinley prior to that night. Ah Chong, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, since, leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I  will kill  you."

4. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterward turned out, was his roommate,  Pascual.

5. Seeing that Pascual was wounded,  he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.

6. It was because of repeated robberies in Fort McKinley that he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.

7. Ah Chong was charged with the crime of assassination,  tried, and  found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide

ISSUE:

W/N  mistake of fact can exempt from criminal liability.

RULING:

YES. Mistake of fact can exempt from criminal liability.

In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted a justifying circumstance. The law enforced at that time was:

Article 8 of the Penal Code.

The following are not delinquent and are therefore exempt from criminal liability:

xxx             xxx             xxx

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.

Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under above-provision.

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

From Ah Chong's perspective, he 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 can not 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 believes threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.

SC ruling:  Judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court is  reversed; the defendant is ACQUITTED.

-----------------------------

ADDITIONAL INFO:

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.

--------------

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;”

------------

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense: 

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. 

2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. 

3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

--------------

Article 1  of the (old) Penal Code is  as follows:

"Any 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.

A voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act, and roundly asserts that without criminal intention there can be no crime.  

---------------

ARTICLE 247. Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted Under Exceptional Circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.