UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations

J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

Case Name The United States vs. Ah Chong

Topic A crime committed on the basis of a mistake of fact
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 5272 | March 19, 1910
Ponente Carson, J.
Case Summary Defendant Ah Chong mistakenly stabbed his roommate Pascual Gualberto who was returning home
in the middle of the night and forcibly opened the door of their shared room. Defendant claimed he
believed Pascual was a thief since failed to identify himself despite the defendant calling out several
times. Pascual eventually died of his wounds and Ah Chong was found guilty of homicide

Doctrine

Article 1 of the Penal Code  

 Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law. 
 Acts and omissions punished by law are always presumed to be voluntary unless the
contrary shall appear. 
 Any person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability,
even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to
commit." 

Article 8 of the Penal Code 

4. He who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided there are the following
attendant circumstances: 
1. Illegal aggression. 
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. 
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Malicious intent is a necessary element in finding of a person’s liability for committing a criminal act.
This is provided by Article 1 of the Penal Code: "Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and
omissions punished by law.” Where voluntary is construed to mean that done freely, intelligently, and
intentionally (Pascual).

Facts ● Defendant Ah Chong was employed as cook at an officer’s club in Fort Mckinley, Rizal
Province. The building is a detached house situated some 40 meters from nearest other
building.
● Victim Pascual Gualberto was also employed as house boy in same establishment. • No one
else slept in the house except the two servants who shared a room at the rear of the
building. The door of their room opened to a narrow porch which was covered by a heavy
growth of vines. The room had one small window which opened on the porch and no other
openings of any kind. • The room was not secured by a permanent bolt or lock. The
occupants had only attached a small hook on the inside of the door and usually placed a
chair against the door to secure it further.
● August 14, 1908: at about 10 in the evening, Ah Chong who had already retired for the
night was suddenly awaken by someone trying to force open the door of the room.
- He sat up, called twice on whoever was at the door and because the intruder did not
answer he threatened to kill the person if they entered the room.
- The room was very dark because of the heavy growth of vines on the porch.
- At that moment, Ah Chong was struck by the edge of the chair just above his knee.
o Believing that the blow was inflicted purposely by the intruder, he struck wildly
at the person who afterwards turned out to be his roommate, Pascual.
- Pascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the steps, desperately wounded. o
Ah Chong, who immediately recognized Pascual in the moonlight, called to his
employers sleeping in the next house and ran back to his room to secure bandages

3
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations
J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

to bind up Pascual’s wounds.

 Defendant alleged he kept a knife under his pillow because of the spate of robberies around
the area, one of which occurred in the house where they worked in.
 It was eventually found out that Pascual had left their house earlier and had gone for a
walk. He and Ah Chong were in amicable terms prior, and had an understanding that if
either returned at night, he should knock on the door and make known his identity.
- No other reasonable explanation can be found on the conduct of Pascual except that
in the spirit of boyish mischief, he was playing a trick on his roommate by
frightening him.
 Pascual died of his wounds the next day.
 Defendant was placed under arrest and eventually charged with assassination, found guilty
of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced to six years and one
day presidio mayor the minimum penalty provided by law.

Issue ● W/N one can be held criminally responsible for an act Ruling NO
committed by reason for a mistake of facts?

Ratio NO.

Due to the lack of malicious intent, one cannot be held criminally liable for an act done by
reason of mistake of facts provided the he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts
were true.

Court held that the defendant struck the fatal blow in firm belief that the intruder who forced open the
door of his sleeping room was a thief and from whose assault he was in imminent danger, both of his
life and property.
- He therefore acted in good faith, without malice, in the belief that he did no more than
exercise his legitimate right of self-defense.
- Exception to the above rule: circumstances under penal provisions of law that touch on
criminal negligence, and where under provisions of Article I of the Penal Code, one
voluntarily commits a crime incurring liability even if it be different from the crime he
intended to commit

Under such circumstances as provided above, there is no criminal liability, provided always that the
alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.
- Intent, or specifically malicious intent, is necessary for the offense charged upon a person.
Ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to cancel this presumption of intent and works an
acquittal.

Article I of the Penal Code indicates malice or criminal intent of some form is essential requisite of
all crimes and offenses defined therein
- "Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and omissions punished by law. Voluntary act
is defined as one that is free, intelligent, and intentional (Pacheco). It further implies and
includes the words con malicia (with malice) • Without intention, there is no crime (Viada)
- Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – “The act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so”

Disposition ● 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
his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instances de oficio,

3
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations
J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

● SO ORDERED

Dissenting Opinions ● Torres, J:

- According to the merits of the case, the defendant is guilty of committing a crime of
homicide by reckless negligence defined and punished in Article 568 of the Penal Code.
- Victim was voluntarily killed and while the act was done without malice or criminal intent,
it was executed with real negligence.
- The acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression of the defendant
under the erroneous belief on the part of the accused that the person who assaulted him was
a malefactor • The defendant therefore incurred responsibility in attacking with a knife a
person who was accustomed to enter said room without any justifiable motive.