48. U.S. v.

Ah Chong ARG
G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910
CARSON, J.:

Blurb: Ah Chong, who killed his roommate whom he mistook for a thief, was held free
from criminal liability for such mistake of fact.

Topic: II. Felonies and Criminal Liability

Doctrine: Mistake of fact, if sufficient to negate a particular intent which under the law is a
necessary ingredient of an offense charged, cancels the presumption of intent, and works an
acquittal.

SuperSummary: Ah Chong was awoken from sleep in the middle of the night by someone
who was forcefully opening the door of his room. Ah Chong sat up from his bed and called out
twice “Who is there?” to which no answer was given. Fearing that the intruder was a
robber or a thief, the Ah Chong leaped to his feet and called out, “If you enter the room, I will
kill you.” Ah Chong was then struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which had
been placed against the door. In the darkness and confusion, Ah Chong, thinking that the blow
had been inflicted by a thief, took a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, and
struck out wildly at the intruder who turned out to be his roommate Pascual. Pascual, in a
desperately wounded condition, ran out to the porch and fell down on the steps. He was
followed by the Ah Chong who immediately recognized him in the moonlight. Ah Chong
admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that
Pascual was "a ladron" because Pascual forced open the door of their room, despite his
warnings. Ah Chong was found guilty of the crime of assassination. The SC, citing that Ah
Chong based his action on a belief, which if true, would have exempted him from criminal
liability; that Ah Chong cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or
even carelessness in believing and acting upon such belief; and that Ah Chong 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, acquitted Ah Chong from the crime.

Facts:
 Defendant: Ah Chong was as a cook at Officers' Quarters No. 27 in Fort McKinley, Rizal
 Victim: Pascual Gualberto was a house boy at the same facility.
 Ah Chong and Pascual lived and slept at Officers' Quarters No. 27 which was
characterized as a “detached house” that is 40 meters away from the nearest building.
They occupied a small room toward the rear of the building,
- The door of which opened to a narrow porch which was covered by a heavy
growth of vines for its entire length and height.
 This made the room very dark at night.
- The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock,
 As a measure of security, the occupants attached a small hook 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.
 There had been several recent robberies in Fort McKinley, one of which took place in a
house in which the Ah Chong was employed as cook. For this reason, Ah Chong kept a
knife under his pillow for his personal protection.

1
  Prior to the incident, the roommates were on friendly and amicable terms, and had an
understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock at the door and
acquaint his companion with his identity.

 Aug 14, 1908, 10 PM: Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by someone trying to forcefully
open the door of the room. Ah Chong sat up from his bed and called out twice,
“Who is there?” to which no answer was given. Fearing that the intruder was a
robber or a thief, the Ah Chong leaped to his feet and called out, “If you enter the room, I
will kill you.” Ah Chong was then struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair
which had been placed against the door. In the darkness and confusion, Ah Chong,
thinking that the blow had been inflicted by the intruder, took a common kitchen knife
which he kept under his pillow, and struck out wildly at the intruder who turned out to be
his roommate Pascual. Pascual, in a desperately wounded condition, ran out to the porch
and fell down on the steps. He was followed by the Ah Chong who immediately
recognized him in the moonlight. Ah Chong immediately called to his employers who
slept in the next house and ran back to his room to secure bandages for Pascual’s
wounds.
 Celestino and Mariano, with whom Pascual had a walk shortly before the incident, heard
the cries for assistance and found Pascual fatally wounded in the stomach. One of them
ran back to their quarters and called Lieutenants Jacobs and Healy, who immediately
went to the aid of the Pascual.
 Ah Chong, then and there, admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but said that he
did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron" because Pascual forced open the
door of their room, despite his warnings.
 Ah Chong was arrested, and Pascual was conveyed to the military hospital, where he
died the following day.
 Ah Chong was charged with the crime of assassination. During the trial, Ah Chong
insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in the
exercise of his lawful right of self-defense.
 The trial court found Ah Chong guilty of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances,
and was sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed
by law.

Issues:
1. W/N Ah Chong’s belief that the intruder was a thief or lardon would entitle him to
exemption from criminal liability?

Ruling:
Yes. Ah Chong’s belief that the intruder was a thief or lardon constitutes a mistake of fact that is
sufficient to negate evil intent which is an inseparable element in every crime.

Sec 4 Art 8 of the Penal Code provides that an accused who acts in defense of his person or rights
are exempt from criminal liability provided that the following are present:
(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.

Under these provisions, if the intruder had been in fact a dangerous thief or "ladron," Ah Chong
would have been entitled to complete exemption from criminal liability. But the evidence clearly
discloses that:

2
 1. The intruder was not a thief or a "ladron" as Ah Chong believed him to be,
2. There was no such "unlawful aggression" on the part of a thief or "ladron" that Ah
Chong believed he was repelling and resisting.
3. There was no real "necessity" for the use of the knife to defend his person or his
property.

The Court, however, held that since evil intent is in general an inseparable element in every crime,
any such mistake of fact that shows that an act was committed without evil intent necessarily
relieves the actor from criminal liability provided that there is no fault or negligence on his part.

Hence, given that Ah Chong based his action on a belief, which if true, would have exempted him
from criminal liability on account of his act; that he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence
or recklessness or even carelessness in believing and acting upon such belief; and that 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, the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and
acquitted him of the crime.

Mistake of fact, if sufficient to negate a particular intent which under the law is a necessary
ingredient of an offense charged cancels the presumption of intent, and works an acquittal.
Disposition:
● The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be
reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and his bail
bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio. So ordered.

● In other words, Ah Chong is deemed free from criminal liability.