Scribd
Upload
54 views3 pages

United States vs. Ah Chong

The defendant Ah Chong stabbed and killed his roommate Pascual Gualberto after being awakened by noises at their bedroom door late at night. [Ah Chong] warned the intruder not to enter or he would kill him, believing it was a thief trying to break in. However, it was actually Pascual entering the room. The court found Ah Chong not criminally responsible because his mistaken belief that Pascual was an intruder was reasonable given the circumstances and not due to negligence. The lower court's guilty verdict was reversed and Ah Chong was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Adreanne Vicxee Tejones
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
54 views3 pages

United States vs. Ah Chong

The defendant Ah Chong stabbed and killed his roommate Pascual Gualberto after being awakened by noises at their bedroom door late at night. [Ah Chong] warned the intruder not to enter or he would kill him, believing it was a thief trying to break in. However, it was actually Pascual entering the room. The court found Ah Chong not criminally responsible because his mistaken belief that Pascual was an intruder was reasonable given the circumstances and not due to negligence. The lower court's guilty verdict was reversed and Ah Chong was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Adreanne Vicxee Tejones
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

United States vs.

Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-5272, 19 March 2010

Facts:

The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province.
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho.

"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest building. No one
slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small room toward the rear of the
building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building. This
porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height
The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the occupants, as a measure of
security, had attached a small hook or catch 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.

On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by some
trying to force open the door of the room. He 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. The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter
the room, I will kill you."

Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be his roommate Pascual. Pascual ran out
upon the porch heavily wounded. Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who
slept in the next house and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.

Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day.
The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had an
understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his
companion with his identity.
The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of
repeated robberies in Fort McKinley. Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he
did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of
their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings. Defendant was found guilty by the trial court
of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating) circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day
presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible

Ruling:

No. By reason of a mistake as to the 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 (i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief,
he will not be criminally liable/responsible because it would be self-defense), but would constitute
the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts (i.e. if he
knew that it was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of homicide/assassination).

The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. "The act itself
does not make man guilty unless his intention were so". The essence of the offense is the wrongful
intent, without which it cannot exist. "The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as
they appear to him." If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a
killing, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide.

The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense. He cannot be said
to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to
the facts.

Lower Court’s decision was reversed. The defendant was acquitted.

You might also like