0% found this document useful (0 votes)
134 views3 pages

US V Ah Chong

Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
134 views3 pages

US V Ah Chong

Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

US v.

Ah Chong
GR No. L-5272 March 19, 1910

Facts: Ah Chong, a Chinese cook; and Pascual Gualberto, a house boy or muchacho, were

roommates at the Officer’s quarter No. 27, Fort McKinley, Rizal. Said quarter was a

detached house situated 40 meters from the nearest building, which was solely occupied by

an officers’ mess or club. No one slept in Quarter No. 27 except the two of them. The door

of their sleeping room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock, so they fasten the

door by placing a chair against it. With robberies rampant in the neighborhood, they took

precaution and agreed that when either returned at night, he should knock at the door and

acquaint his companion with his identity.

On the night of August 14, 1908, about 10 o’clock in the evening, Ah Chong was

suddenly awakened by someone trying to force open the door of the room. Being a

scaredy-cat, he got up and called out twice, “Who is there?” No one answered. Due to the

heavy growth of vines along the front of the door by their porch, the room was very dark. He

feared that the intruder was a robber, so he warned: “If you enter the room, I will kill you.”

At that moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which wad been

placed against the door. Ah Chong seized a common kitchen knife that he kept under his

pillow, and stabbed the intruder. It turned out that Gualberto did not comply to their

agreement to identify oneself before entering their room, thence his roommate has mistaken

him for a robber.

When Ah Chong recognized his roommate in the moonlight, he immediately asked for

help at the other house, No. 28, and then secured bandages to bind up Gualberto’s wounds.
However, the muchacho died from the effects of the wound the following day at a military

hospital.

Ah Chong was charged with the crime of assassination and was found guilty by the trial

court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. During the trial, he argued that he only stabbed

his roommate because of mistake of fact, thinking that the latter was a robber. He only did

the act for self-defense. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Is Ah Chong criminally liable for the death of Pascual Gualberto?

Held: No. In the defendant’s argument, he only struck the fatal blow by reason of a mistake

of fact: that he believed the person trying to enter the room is a thief. Ignorance of mistake of

fact, if such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which

under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged “cancels the presumption of

intent,” and works an acquittal; except in those cases where the circumstances demand a

conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence; and in cases where the

circumstances demand a conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence;

and in cases where, under the provisions of Article 1 of the Penal Code, one voluntary

committing a crime or misdeamour incurs criminal liability for any wrongful act committed

by him, even though it be different from that which he intended to commit.

The Supreme Court held that under such circumstances there is no criminal liability,

provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or

bad faith. Ah Chong was not negligent as he gave his warning to desist thrice, and gave a
threat that he would kill the intruder if he persisted in his attempt. There was also no motive

of killing his roommate as they were amicable and in good terms.

Ah Chong also argued that because of this mistake of fact, he only exercised his lawful

right to self-defense. In case the person who was trying to enter the room was really a thief,

there would be no doubt that his act was purely self-defense. Article 8 of the Penal Code

provides that he who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there is illegal

aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of

sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, he shall be exempt from

criminal liability.

In the case at bar, Ah Chong, being faint-hearted, thought that there was an illegal

aggression, which is seen through the forceful opening of their room door. The defendant,

although fearing for his life, did not lack in giving fair warnings to the intruder; thus the

Supreme Court ruled in his favor.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the defendant of

the crime. This case is a landmark case in the criminal law of the Philippines as it tackles the

criminal liability of a person who merely exercised his right to defend himself.

You might also like