US vs.

Ah Chong
G.R. No. 5272 | March 19, 1910 | Carson, J.

Petitioner(s) The United States

Respondent(s) Ah Chong

Topic Mistake of Fact

Doctrine(s)

RECIT-READY SUMMARY

This case tackles mistake of fact.

Ah Chong, thinking that there was an intruder or a thief trying to barge into his sleeping room, killed Pascual Galberto
with a knife that he kept under his pillow for protection.

Ah Chong and Galberto were roommates in a small room with a window and and a door with a flimsy lock; a chair is
used to bolster the door. There is a thick canopy of vines outside the room so very little light can come in. The two had
an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock at the doors and acquaint his companion with his
identity.

On August 14, 1908, Galberto went out for a walk and came back at around 10PM. At this time, Ah Chong already
retired for the night. He was suddenly awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, “Who is
there” to which there was no reply. He thought there was an intruder or a thief so he stood up and called out “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 has
been placed against the door. In the darkness and confusion, Ah Chong thought that he was being attacked by the
burglar. So he seized the kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow for self-defense, and struck the intruder.
Apparently, the intruder was Galberto and he died.

Ah Chong was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six
years and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

The issue is whether one can be held criminally responsible, who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act for
which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but which would
constitute the crime of homicide or assasination if the actor had known the true state of the facts at the time when he
committed the act.

The Court ruled in the negative. They hold that there is no criminal liability in such cases, provided always that the
alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. Ah Chong did not have a criminal intent, he
was not negligent, and had the facts as were he believed them to be, he would be exempt from criminal liability,

Hence, the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court, and acquitted Ah
Chong. His bail bond was exonerated and the costs were de oficio.

FACTS

Ah Chong, a cook, and Pascual Galberto, deceased and ex-muchacho, lived together at Officers’ quarters No. 27. They
jointly occupy a small room which had a window and a door with a flimsy lock; a chair is used to bolster the door. The
two had an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock at the doors and acquaint his companion
UPD Block Eve 4 (2026)
with his identity.

On August 14, 1908, Galberto went out for a walk and came back at around 10PM. At this time, Ah Chong already
retired for the night. He was suddenly awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, “Who is
there” to which there was no reply. He thought there was an intruder or a thief so he stood up and called out “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 has
been placed against the door. In the darkness and confusion, Ah Chong thought that he was being attacked by the
burglar. So he seized the kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow for self-defense, and struck the intruder.

There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to August 14, one of which took place in a house
which the defendant was employed as a cook, and it was because of these repeated robberies why Ah Chong kept a
knife under his pillow for his protection.

Ah Chong was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six
years and one day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

ISSUE(S) RULING

W/N one can be held criminally responsible, who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does No
an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed
them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assasination if the actor had
known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act.

RATIO

We hold that unders 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.

A careful examination of the facts as disclosed convinces us that the defendant struck the blow in the firm belief that the
intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was an imminent peril, both
of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in the view of the circumstances, as they
may have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without the malice, or criminal
intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts
been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from the criminal liability on account of his
act and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into
his mistake as to the facs, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he
believed threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE,

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 he is bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So
ordered.

UPD Block Eve 4 (2026)