United States v. Ah Chong

Ah Chong, a cook, shared a small room at officers' quarters No. 27 in Fort McKinley with Pascual Gualberto, a house boy. The door had no lock, so they fastened it with a hook and a chair. There had been several robberies in the fort. The two had agreed that whoever came home at night would knock and identify himself. At about 10 p.m. on August 14, 1908, Ah Chong woke to someone forcing the door. He called out twice, "Who is there?", got no answer, and warned that he would kill the intruder if he entered. The door opened and the chair struck him above the knee. In the dark, believing a thief was attacking him, he struck out with a kitchen knife he kept under his pillow. The intruder was Pascual, who died in hospital the next day. Ah Chong followed him out, recognised him, called to his employers for help and ran back for bandages. He was charged with assassination (murder). The trial court convicted him of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances and sentenced him to six years and one day of presidio mayor.

1. 1Whether a person who, because of a mistake of fact, does an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed is criminally liable for homicide.
2. 2Whether Ah Chong's mistake was due to negligence or bad faith, so that he remains liable.

No criminal liability; the conviction was reversed. The case arose under the old Spanish Penal Code. Under Article 8(4) of that Code, self-defence requires illegal aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court said Ah Chong would clearly have been exempt had the intruder really been a thief. There was in fact no real aggression. The question was therefore whether his mistake of fact excused him. Drawing on Article 1 of the Penal Code (crimes are "voluntary" acts), Spanish commentators and Anglo-American authority, the Court held that criminal intent is an essential element of homicide and assassination. It applied the maxim ignorantia facti excusat. One who acts under a mistake of fact that would make the act innocent if true incurs no criminal liability, "provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was not due to negligence or bad faith." Good faith and freedom from fault are judged by the circumstances as they appeared to the accused at the time. Here Ah Chong struck in the firm belief that a thief who had forced his door at night, despite his warnings, was putting his life and property in imminent peril. He acted in good faith, without malice or criminal intent. He was not negligent or careless either in making the mistake or in the means he used to defend himself. The judgment of conviction was reversed and he was acquitted, with his bail bond exonerated and costs de oficio. Arellano, C.J., and Mapa, J., dissented.