Search This Blog

  THE UNITED STATES  VS. AH CHONG G.R. NO. L-5272; MARCH 19, 1910 FACTS:      Ah Chong was employed as a cook at Fort McKinley, and at the s...

THE UNITED STATES VS. AH CHONG G.R. NO. L-5272; MARCH 19, 1910

 THE UNITED STATES  VS. AH CHONG

G.R. NO. L-5272; MARCH 19, 1910

FACTS:

    Ah Chong was employed as a cook at Fort McKinley, and at the same place Pascual Gualberto was employed as a house boy or muchacho. They shared a small room in Officers’ Quarters 27.

                On the night of August 14, 1908, Ah Chong was awakened by someone who was trying to force open the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, “who is there?” He heard no answer and feared that the one pushing the door and forcing his way into the room was a thief, he leaped to his feet and called out, “if you enter the room, I will kill you.” At the moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which had been placed against the door. In the darkness and Confusion the defendant thought that the blow had been inflicted by the burglar. Ah Chong seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, he struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, Pascual. Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.

                Ah chong stated that he kept a knife under his pillow to protect him because of the repeated robberies. Ah chong admitted that he killed pascual under the impression that he thought pascual was a robber because he forced open the door, despite warnings.

ISSUE:

       Whether or Not Ah Chong can be held criminally liable 

RULING:

    NO, Ah Chong must be acquitted because of the mistake of fact. A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril. That in view of all the circumstances, he acted in good faith, without 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 criminal liability on account of his act; and that he cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and the property under his charge.

The defendant should acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio. So ordered.




0 comments: