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

FACTS: *Defendant, Ah Chong, was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province), and at the same place Pascual Gualberto, deceased, (employed as house boy or muchacho). August 1908, a detached house situates some 40 meters from the nearest bldg. was occupied solely as an officers' mess or club. August 14, 1908>Pascual had left the house early in the evening and gone for a walk with his friends, Celestino Quiambao and Mariano Ibaez, servants employed at officers' quarters No. 28. and returned about 10PM. >At 10PM the defendant, was 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. Fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief, he called out "If you enter the room, I will kill you." >Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow (There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident thats why he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.),he struck out wildly at the intruder who turned out to be Pascual, his roommate. >Pascual was wounded, Ah chong called to his employers who slept in the next house, No. 28, and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. Also, Celestino and Mariano heard cries for assistance and they call Liuetenants Jacobs and Healy, who immediately went to the aid of the wounded man. Pascual died the following day. >The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years and one day presidio mayor. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant can held be criminally liable? RULINGS: NO >By reason of mistakes as to 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, but would constitutes a crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts > The defendants ignorance or mistake of the fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. >The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him >The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self defense. > Article 1 of the Penal Code is as follows: Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.

Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the contrary shall appear. An 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. > The celebrated Spanish jurist Pacheco, discussing the meaning of the word "voluntary" as used in this article, say that a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act, and roundly asserts that without intention (intention to do wrong or criminal intention) there can be no crime >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" >Art. 11. Of RPC JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. CONCLUSION: RTCs decision is reversed, the defendant is aquitted.