CRIMINAL LAW 1: A DIGEST ON THE CASE OF UNITED STATES VS.

AH CHONG

Facts:
Ah Chong, the defendant, a cook, and Pascual Gualberto, the deceased, a house boy or
muchacho, were employed at Officers quarters, No. 27, Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province. The two are the
only occupants of a small room which is attached to the rear of the building. Prior to the incident,
robberies and theft were prevalent in Fort McKinley. The roommates had a deal to knock on the door
and inform his identity when returning back to the quarters.

On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 oclock, the defendant was awakened by some
trying to force to open the door. Then, he called twice, Who is there? but there was no response, and
was convinced by the noise at the door that someone is bent on forcing his way into the room. He called
again, If you enter the room, I will kill you. He grabbed a common knife under his pillow and struck
wildly the intruder, who afterwards turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. After knowing it was him,
he called for help to their employer and ran back to their room to get bandages to bind Pascual wounds.

The defendant admitted that he had stabbed his roommate but he did under the impression that
Pascual was thief or robber because he forced open the door without any response on the defendants
questions on identity and warnings.

Issue: Whether or not Ah Chong, the defendant, is criminally liable.

Held: No. The defendant acquitted of the crime.

Reasons:

Under the provision of Article 8 of the Penal Code, there can be no doubt that defendant would
be entitle for complete exemption from criminal liability. If the intruder who forced open the door of his
room had been in fact a dangerous ladron, as the defendant believed him to be, No one, under such
circumstances, would doubt the right of the defendant to resist and repel such intrusion despite the
warnings of the defendant to kill the intruder if he persisted his attempt to enter the room.

Applying the principle of mistake of fact, in this case, the defendant were ignorant of the fact as
to the identity of Pascual. The time during the forced entry of the deceased, the defendant called twice,
Who is there? constitutes on the part of the defendant to observe diligence or good faith in
ascertaining the identity of the deceased. Hence, the defendant is excused for incurring criminal liability.