US vs Ah Chong Facts: The defendant, Ah Chong was employed as a cook at the Officers quarters, No.

27 in Fort McKinley, Rizal Province and while the deceased Pascual Gualberto, was also employed as a house boy at the same place and usually slept with Ah Chong . Officers quarters No. 27 is a detached house situated by almost 40 meters from the nearest building. Only the two servants (Ah Chong ang Pascual) and no other person slept in the house. They both sleep on the same room which is secured only by a small hook or catch on the inside door and in order to reinforce security, they had a habit fastening the door by placing against it a chair. On the night of August 14, 1908, after Ah Chong had gone to bed he was suddenly awakened by someone trying to open the door of the room. In response, he asked out twice, who is there? but there was no answer. Due to the heavy growth of vines along the front porch, the room was very dark and the defendant though that the intruder was a robber or a thief got up from his bed and once again called out, if your enter the room, I will kill you. Prior to this incident, there were a lot of cases of robbery in the neighborhood. At that moment he was struck by a chair which had been placed against the door. Believing that he is being attacked by the person who is trying to force open the door, seized a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow and thereafter stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual. Seeing that his roommate was wounded, defendant called out to his employers who slept in the next house, N0.28 and went back to his room to secure for bandages to bind up Pascuals wounds. Death resulted from the fatal wounds inflicted by the defendant and the trial court convicted him of murder hence this appeal. Issue: Whether or not Ah Chong is criminally liable for the act done out of mistake of fact Held: SC Held that Ah Chong is not criminally liable. The court is convinced that the defendant Ah Chong committed that fatal act due to his firm belief that the deceased was a thief from whose assault he was
an imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising hid legitimate right of self-defense. If the circumstances were as what he believed them to be, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability. At the same time, the defendant is not said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts and the means employed to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believed threatened his person and his property as well as the properties assigned to his care. 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 he is bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Johnson, Moreland and Elliott, JJ., concur. Arellano, C.J., and Mapa, J., dissent.