7/28/2019 People v Ahchong Digest

1/2

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 atthe 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 anofficers' mess or club.

August 14, 1908-

>Pascual had left the house early in the evening and gone for a walk with his friends, Celestino Quiambaoand 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 doorthat it was being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. Fearing that theintruder 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 hekept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.),he struck out wildly at the intruder who turnedout to be Pascual, his roommate.

>Pascual was wounded, Ah chong called to his employers who slept in the next house, No. 28, and ranback to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. Also, Celestino and Mariano heard criesfor assistance and they call Liuetenants Jacobs and Healy, who immediately went to the aid of thewounded man. Pascual died the following day.

>The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and found guilty by the trial court ofsimple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years and one daypresidio 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 criminalliability if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would constitutes a crime of homicide orassassination 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.

7/28/2019 People v Ahchong Digest

2/2

Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntarily unless the contrary shallappear.An person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though thewrongful 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 thisarticle, say that a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentionalact, and roundly asserts that withoutintention (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 wereso

> 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 CIRCUMSTANCESAND 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.