US vs.

Ah Chong (1910)
Posted on 2020-11-12

THE UNITED STATES,

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AH CHONG,
defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-5272 | March 19, 1910 | En Banc | Justice Carson
Criminal Law | Statutory Construction | Legal Maxims, Principles, and Doctrines

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so.

FACTS:
The defendant Ah Chong worked as a cooked while the deceased Pascual
Gilberto who was a house boy. The two of them shared a room having a door
with no permanent lock. As a means of securing it, a chair was placed against
the door. At around 10 in the evening, Ah Chong who was sleeping was
awakened by someone trying to forcefully open the door. He called twice but
there was no response. Fearing that the intruder might be a thief, Ah Chong
took his knife and struck the intruder when it entered the room. It turned out
that the said intruder was his roommate Pascual. Despite his plea of self-
defense, said defendant was found guilty with homicide by the Court of First
Instance.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant by reason of mistake of facts criminally liable.

RULING:
The Court held that there is no criminal liability when one commits an offense
or act due to ignorance of facts provided that it was not due to negligence or
bad faith. Such ignorance of the fact is sufficient to negative the particular
intent which under the law, is an essential element to the crime of murder
charged cancels the presumption of intent and works for an acquittal. In the
case, the defendant struck the fatal blow on the belief that the intruder was a
robber, on which his life and property was in danger. It is clear that he acted in
good faith without negligence and without any criminal intent in exercising his
right to self-defense. There can be no crime, large or small, without an evil
mind. The author of the Penal Code deemed criminal intent or malice to be an
essential element of the various crimes and misdemeanors. It is a principle
that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot
exist. In other words, punishment is the sequence of wickedness, without
which it cannot be. And neither in philosophical speculation nor in religious or
moral sentiment would any people in any age allow that a man should be
deemed guilty unless his mind was so. This doctrine confirmed by the maxim
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in which the act itself does not make a
man guilty unless his intention were so. Thus, the Court held that the
defendant should be acquitted.