US VS AH CHONG 15 Philippine Reports 488 (1910) Defendant and Appellant: Ah Chong Plaintiff and Appellee:United States Ponente: J.

Carson FACTS: Ah Chong, the defendant, was employed as a cook at Officers quarters, No. 27 Fort McKinley, Rizal Province, whereas the deceased, Pascual Gualberto was employed as a house boy or muchacho. The defendant and the deceased were living in the same house and usually slept in the same room, where the door of which had an opened narrow porch, which was covered by heavy growth of vines, and a small hook and a chair against it. One night, at around 10 oclock, Ah Chong had gone to bed. Abruptly, he was awakened by a sudden noise and a sound of a door trying to be opened silently. As a response, Ah Chong called out twice and asked Who is there? but received no answer. Fearing that the one who is opening his door was an intruder or a thief, since several cases of robberies have been reported prior to the incident. He called out again and warned If you enter the room, I will kill you. After that moment, he was struck against the wall by the chair, believing that the intruder himself was attacking him. Ah Chong went hurriedly to his bed, seized the knife and struck the intruder. The intruder whom he thought was a thief or a ladron was unexpectedly his roommate, Pascual Gualberto. Upon seeing the face of Pascual in the moonlight, Ah Chong asked his employers for help to secure bandages for the wounds he had caused. They brought Pascual Gualberto in the military hospital, where he died the following day. Ah Chong, on the other hand, admitted that he had killed his roommate, Pascual Gualberto but insisted that had struck him without any intent to do the crime but only in the exercise of his lawful right of self-defence, despite the warning he had raised. Thus, Ah Chong was charged by the trial court guilty of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances and a penalty of six years and one day, presidio mayor. ISSUE: Whether Ah Chong is criminally liable in the commission of the crime by the reason of a mistake of the facts DECISION: No. According to Article 8 of the Penal Code, He who acts in defence 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... should be therefore be exempted from criminal liability. Thus, Ah Chong, on the basis of the facts presented, was no doubt be exempted from criminal liability since he had just used the weapon to defend himself from the attacks of what he supposed was a ladron.

Furthermore, the mistake of the facts is sufficient enough to prove that there is no criminal intent on the part of the defendant in striking the deceased; when the latter is being treated as a necessary ingredient in committing a crime. Hence, SC ruled that the defendant be acquitted with the crime charged against him by the lower court, bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instances de oficio.