THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.
The United States, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ah Chong, defendant-appellant.



Topic: Mental element (Mens rea) - Deliberate intent (Dolo) - Mistake of fact


Facts:
The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal
Province
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho
"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest building
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
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; the 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
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by
some trying to force open the door of the room
He 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
The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you."
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at
the intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be his roommate Pascual
Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
Recognizing Pascual, the defendant 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
Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day
The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and
had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door
and acquaint his companion with his identity
The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of
repeated robberies in Fort McKinley
Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that
Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite
the defendant's warnings
Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating)
circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty
prescribed by law
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible
Holding:
No.
Ratio:
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
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.