US vs Ah Chong

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff and appellee, vs AH CHONG, defendant and appellant.

Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal

Date: March 19, 1910

Ponente: Carson, J.

Facts:
• Ah Chong, defendant, was employed as cook and deceased Pascual Gualberto as house
boy at Officers’ quarters No. 27.
• Ah Chong and Pascual share the same room (Officer’s quarter No. 27), which is situated
some 40 meters away from the nearest building. No one slept there except the two of
them.
• One night, at about 10pm, the defendant was awakened by someone trying to force the
door open. He asked who it was but the other didn’t answer.
• Fearing that the other person was a robber, Ah Chong threatened him that if he enters the
room, he will kill him.
• He was struck above the knee by the edge of the chair that has been placed against the
door. Convinced that the other person, whom he thought was a burglar, was still forcing
his way in, he struck the intruder with a kitchen knife he was keeping under his pillow.
• Recognizing his roommate, who he has friendly relations with, he called for help to his
employers at the next building. He also got bandages to bind up Pascual’s wounds.
• He kept a knife to defend himself. There had been several robberies around the area not
long prior to the date of the event.
• Ah Chong and Pascual had an agreement that when either returned at night, he should
knock at the door and acquaint the other with his identity.
• Pascual went out for a walk with his two other friends that night. They returned at about
10pm and assisted the victim when they heard cries for help.
• The defendant admitted of stabbing his roommate, but said he did it under the impression
that the other was a thief. Defendant claimed that the act was done in self-defense.
• Defendant was arrested and trial court found him guilty of simple homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not defendant can be acquitted on the ground of self-defense.

Held: No. Defendant is acquitted.

Ratio:
The general rule is intent/malice is an essential element in a crime. In the absence of express
provisions modifying the general rule (i.e., negligence), an act without malice is not punishable.
Whenever a man takes self-defense, he is justified in acting on the facts as they appear to him. If
he defends himself according to what he supposes the facts to be, the law will not punish him
though the facts that the person believes to be true are otherwise.