SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:

Criminal Law Definition of felony August 10, 2018 Roberto

Ryan
Cala
CASE NAME: THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.
PONENTE: Carson J: Case Date: March 19, 1910

Case Summary:
Ah Chong, a cook employed at Ft. McKinley and roommate of the deceased, woke up to
an unknown person attempting to open the door. Upon hearing the attempt, he asked the
unknown to identify himself, when he received no answer, he assumed it to be an
attempted robbery. He shouted “if you enter the room, I will kill you” and was struck by the
chair placed against the door. In an act of self-defense, he seized a kitchen knife and fatally
wounded the intruder, who was his roommate, Pascual Gualberto. He was found guilty of
simple homicide by the trial court. The ruling of the trial court was reversed due to mistake of
fact. If the facts were as he believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing
Gualberto due to the facts (as he thought they were) fell under the justifying circumstances
prescribed by Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Rule of Law/Doctrine:
Mistake of fact – misapprehension of fact on part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent. An honest
mistake of fact destroys presumption of criminal intent which arises from commission of a
felonious act.

Detailed Facts:
- It is to be noted that much of the essential and vital facts of the case rests solely on
the testimony of the accused himself, with no other evidence as to these facts was
available either to the prosecution or to the defense.
- Ah Chong was employed as a cook at “Officers’ quarters, No. 27,” Fort McKinley, Rizal
Province. Employed as a houseboy or muchacho at the same was Pascual
Gualberto, deceased.
- Their area of residence was classified as a “detached house” situated some 40 meters
from the nearest building. No one slept in the house except the two aforementioned
individuals who occupied a small room toward the rear of the building, the door of
which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building. This porch
was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height. The door of
the room was not furnisehd with a permanent bolt or lock, and occupants, as a
measure of security, had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door,
and were in the habit of reinforcing this somewhat insecure means of fastening the
door by placing against it a chair.
- On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 o’clock, the defendant who was already
asleep at the time was suddenly woken up by someone trying to forcefully open the
door of the room. Alarmed, the defendant sat up from his bed and called out twice,
“Who is there?” to which no answer was given. Convinced that that someone was a
robber or a thief and was trying to force his way into the room, the defendant leaped
 to his feet and called out “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” Due to the heavy
growth of vines along the front porch, the room was very dark.
- At that moment, he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which
had been placed against the door. Later on, it would be revealed that the chair was
probably thrown back by the sudden opening of the door.
- Confused and in darkness, the defendant thought that the blow had been inflicted by
the assailant. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the
defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, as it turns out, was his roommate.
- Pascual ran out to the porch and fell down on the steps in a desperately wounded
condition, followed by the defendant, who immediately recognized him in the
moonlight.
- Seeing that Pascual was wounded, the defendant called to his employers who slept in
the next house, No. 28, and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up
Pascual’s wounds.
- The defendant apparently kept a knife underneath his pillow as a means to protect
himself since there had been a string of robberies in Fort McKinley, one of which took
place in a house in which the defendant was employed as a cook, not long prior to
the date of the incident described.
- The defendant and the deceased, who roomed together, appear to have had a
friendly and amicable relationship with each other, and had an understanding that
when either returned at night, he should knock at the door and introduce himself.
- That night, Pascual had left the house early in the evening and gone for a walk with
his friends, Celestino Quiambao and Mariano Ibañez, both of whom were servants
employed at “Officers’ quarters No. 28”, the nearest house to the mess hall.
- Celestino and Mariano stopped at their room at No. 28, while Pascual continued to his
room at No. 27. A few moments after the party had separated, Celestino and
Mariano heard cries for assistance and upon returning to No. 27, found Pascual sitting
on the back steps fatally wounded in the stomach, whereupon one of them ran back
to No. 28 and called Lieutenants Jacobs and Healy, who immediately went to the aid
of the wounded man.
- Then and there, the defendant admitted that he had stabbed his roommate, but
maintains that he did so under the impression that Pascual was “a ladron” (a thief)
because he forced opoen the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant’s
warnings.
- Defendant was placed under arrest forthwith, and Pascual was conveyed to the
military hospital, where he died from the effects of his wound on the following day.
- The defendant was charged with the crime of assassination, tried, and 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.
- At his trial, the defendant admitted that he killed his roommate, Pascual Gualberto,
but insisted that he struck the fatal blow without any intent to do a wrongful act, in the
exercise of his lawful right of self-defense.
Issue/s:
 W/N Ah Chong committed a felony by killing Pascual Gualberto, a houseboy-
muchacho
Holding:
  Article 8 of the Penal Code provides that —
The following are not delinquent and are therefore exempt from criminal liability:
xxx xxx xxx
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.
 Does Ah Chong fit this definition?
Ah Chong justly believed that a thief was forcibly trying to enter into his room, as
evidenced by his repeated warnings (3 times) to kill the intruder if he managed to
break in. There was no Illegal aggression as there was no thief, but then the question
would be if Ah Chong should be held responsible for a mistake of the facts. A
determiner would be criminal intent (animus furiendi), and a mistake would cancel
any presumption of intent.
 Let us also consider whether Chong’s action was committed with deceit (dolo) or with
culpa (fault)
As mentioned above, it is certain that Ah Chong acted with good faith and
repeatedly warned the intruder, thus there is no intent to criminality and no dolo
As for culpa, which deals with a question of whether the defendant has skill to know
whether or not the intruder was a thief; as the facts prove the room was dark, the
window was small and obscured by vines, in the darkness the defendant hit himself
with the edge of the chair (which was barring the door), and thinking it was a thief,
attacked back in self defense.
 Concerning these facts applied to the definition, therefore, the defendant is has not
committed a felony (delitos)

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 instance de oficio. So ordered.
Relevant Penal Code Provisions:
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).ch anrobles

 Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa). ch anrobl es virt ual law library

 There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
virtual law li brary
chanrobl es