Title
People vs Ah Chong
Case
G.R. No. 5272
Decision Date
Mar 19, 1910
Ah Chong, fearing a robber, stabbed Pascual in self-defense during a nighttime intrusion. The Supreme Court acquitted him, ruling his reasonable mistake of fact negated criminal intent.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18630)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Employment
    • Defendant Ah Chong, a cook at Officers’ Quarters No. 27, Fort McKinley, Rizal Province.
    • Deceased Pascual Gualberto, a house boy, jointly lodged with Ah Chong in a rear room.
  • Physical Layout and Security Measures
    • Detached mess house, 40 m from nearest building; servants’ room opened onto a vine-covered porch.
    • Single door and window; no locks, only an inside hook and a chair placed against the door.
  • Circumstances of the Fatal Incident (August 14, 1908)
    • About 10 pm, Ah Chong awoke to someone forcing open the door; darkness prevented identification.
    • Fearing a robber (in light of recent thefts), he warned “If you enter, I will kill you,” and was struck by the chair.
    • Believing the intruder was a “ladron,” he seized a knife under his pillow and stabbed the figure, who fled onto the porch.
    • In moonlight, Ah Chong recognized Pascual, summoned aid, and attempted first aid; Pascual died next day.
  • Prior Events and Trial Below
    • Several recent robberies on the post; Ah Chong kept a knife for personal protection.
    • Defense claimed honest mistake and self-defense under Article 8(4) of the Penal Code.
    • Trial court found him guilty of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances; sentenced to six years and one day of presidio mayor.

Issues:

  • Self-Defense and Mistake of Fact
    • Whether Ah Chong’s honest belief of facing a dangerous intruder justified his use of lethal force.
    • Whether a mistake as to the intruder’s identity negates criminal liability under Article 8(4).
  • Essential Elements of Homicide
    • Whether malice or criminal intent is an indispensable ingredient of homicide or assassination.
    • Whether ignorance or mistake of fact can “cancel the presumption of intent.”
  • Scope of Exemptions in the Penal Code
    • Whether Article 1’s presumption of voluntariness and Article 8’s exemptions require an actual, not merely supposed, aggression.
    • Whether negligence or bad faith in forming the mistake bars exemption.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.