UNITED STATES vs.

AH CHONG (1910) Justifiable homicide, self defense, mistake of fact Plaintiff and Appelle: US Plaintiff-brings action to law Appelle-one whom against cause is appealed Defendant and Appellant: Ah Chong Defendant-case against him Appellant-files an appeal:

FACTS: Based on testimony of the defendant Ah Chong (cook) who allegedly caused the death of Pascual Gualberto (house boy/deceased) -On August 14, 1908, at 10 pm, Ah Chong was asleep in the room he shared with the deceased, in Fort McKinley Park, Rizal Province -he was awakened by someone trying to force open the door (there were previous burglaries that week, so he and the deceased had an understanding that at night the person should knock on the door and identify himself) -Ah Chong called out 2x who is there?, but no answer, he then said If you enter the room, I will kill you -the chair propped up against the door fell on Ah Chongs knee and he thought it was a blow from the intruder -he seized a common kitchen knife and struck at the intruder, who turned out to be Gualberto -Gualberto ran out to the steps, and Ah Chong came after him to help -Quiambao and Ibanez heard cries for help and called 2 Lieutenants, to whom the defendant admitted that he stabbed his room mate thinking it was a ladron because he forced the door open despite the defendants warning -Gualberto died the next day -defendant charged with the crime of assassination and found guilty of homicide, sentenced to presidio mayor, 6 years and 1 day -Ah Chong said he was exercising his lawful right to self defense and struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act ISSUES: Whether one can be held criminally responsible for an act he committed by reason of mistake of facts? -if the facts were as he supposed them to be he would be exempt from criminal liability -if he had known the true state of facts at the time he committed the act, it would be homicide or assassination -Art 1 of Penal Code: voluntary acts free, intelligent and intentional acts -Art 8 of Penal Code: (4) self defense if there is illegal aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it, lack of sufficient provocation of the person defending himself HELD: NO. There is no criminal liability, provided that the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith (in his mistake as to the facts or the means adopted to defend himself.) Reverse judgment of conviction and acquit defendant of the crime. Dissenting opinion: Torres, J. -Defendant committed the crime of homicide by reckless negligence, art. 568 of Penal Code. The act was done without malice or criminal intent, but was executed with negligence (acts committed by the deceased did not warrant this aggression under the erroneous belief that the person was a malefactor). Prision Correcional.