US v.

Ah Chong (GR 5272 March 19, 1910)

FACTS
The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at "Officers' quarters, No.
27," Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province, and at the same place Pascual Gilberto,
deceased, was employed as a house boy or muchacho. On the night of
August 14, 1908, at about 10 o'clock, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened by
some trying to force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called
out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no answer and was convinced by the
noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone bent upon
forcing his way into the room. Fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief,
leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that
moment he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair which had
been placed against the door. Because of the darkness and confusion the
defendant thought that the blow had been inflicted by the person who had
forced the door open, whom he supposed to be a burglar, though it is
probable that the chair was merely thrown back into the room by the sudden
opening of the door against which it rested. Seizing a common kitchen knife
which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder
who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, Pascual.
There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of
the incident just described, one of which took place in a house in which the
defendant was employed as cook; and as defendant alleges, it was because
of these repeated robberies he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal
protection.
ISSUE
WoN Ah Chong can be acquitted on the grounds of mistake of fact.
RULING
Ah Chong should not be held criminally liable. There was an innocent mistake
of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, because,
having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed
by circumstances to act immediately, Ah Chong had no alternative but to take
the fact as they then appeared to him. Under Article 11, par 1 of Revised
Penal Code (previously Art. 8 of the Penal Code) Justifying circumstances -
anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights provided the following
circumstance concur:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself
If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong,
there would have been unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder.
Therefore there would be a necessity on the part of the defendant to defend
himself or his home. Lastly, Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Also
according to the same article, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well
as in the act of the person making the defense.
Mistake of fact defined:
1. While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith
(ignorantialegis non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the
accused from criminal liability (ignorantiafactiexcusat).
2. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable,
because he did not act with criminal intent.
3. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent
which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
Guevarra Vs. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, 26 1989

Facts:
On 29 October 1984, the petitioner, then 11 years old, accidentally but fatally
wounded his friend and playmate by means of a .22-cal air rifle.
The examining prosecutor exonerated the petitioner due to his age and what
appeared to be an accident.
The victims parents however appealed to the proper authorities hence a case
was filed against the petitioner for homicide through reckless imprudence
citing in part: the above-named accused, who is over 9 years but below 15
years of age and acting with discernment, did then and there
The petitioner filed a motion to quash on 25 October 1985 on the following
grounds:
I. That the facts charged do not constitute offense,
II. That the information contains averments which if true would
constitute a legal excuse of justification and
III. That this honorable court has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged and the person of the defendant.

The motion to quash was denied with respect to I and III while the second
ground was deferred until the evidence have been presented in the trial,
hence this petition for certiorari.

Issues:

1. Whether an 11-year old boy could be charged with the crime of
homicide thru reckless imprudence, and
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the
fact that it did not pass thru the barangay lupon.
Held:
1. Yes.
a) While the petitioner is below 15 but above 9 years, he could have been
exempted from criminal liability but the concept of discernment declares
otherwise (Art. 12 (3) RPC);

b) Discernment amid the different definitions point to the fact that the
petitioner possesses the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, his
moral trait to know what might result from his actions. Hi has a choice. In
culpable felonies, the elements of intelligence (at which discernment is
part), freedom to act and imprudence/neglect are present. The absence of
intent to commit a crime is replaced by the wrongful act resulting from
imprudence/neglect and hisdiscernment or appreciation that the act did was
wrong, it is punishable by the revised penal code and incurred by means of
culpa. Such are the basic requirements for criminal liability of a minor
above 9 and below 15 years of age punishable by the revised penal code.

2. The court has jurisdiction.
The petitioner, citing PD 1508, stated that the case should have been first
brought before the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Supreme Court however
cited the specific PD 1508 Section 2, i.e.,
Section 2. Subject matters for amicable settlement. The Lupon of
each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes except:
Xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx
3. Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding 30 days, or a fine
exceeding P200.00;
Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

People of the Philippines Vs. Fernando de Fernando
Facts:
The accused Fernando de Fernando was a policeman. He was informed that
three convicts had escaped. In the dark, he saw a person going up the stairs
of a house, carrying a bolo and calling for someone inside. The daughter of
the house was at the same time with the accused that fired a shot in the air.
As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he
was one of the escaped prisoners, Fernando fired directly at the man who
turned out to be the nephew of the owner of the house.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused can make use of mistake of fact as defense in his
criminal liability?
Rulings:
No. In the case at bar, the defendant cannot make use of mistake of fact in his
defense. He is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. The victim
called someone in the house. That fact indicated that he was known to the
owner of the house. The accused should have inquired from the daughter of
the owner of the house as to who the unknown person might be.

PEOPLE v. RENEGADO May 31, 1974 (G.R. No. L-27031)

PARTIES:plaintiff-appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
accused-appellant: LORETO RENEGADO y SENORA

FACTS:

Mamerto de Lira was a math teacher in TiburcioTancinco Memorial Vocational
School which is run by the national government. Loreto Renegado was a clerk
in the same school. De Lira asked Renegado to type his exam questions but
the latter refused. They had a small argument which left the accused fuming
with anger. The accused told several people that hell gonna kill the deceased.
They pacified him and told him the possible consequences that may happen.
After a few days, while the deceased was in the canteen sitting with his back
towards the accused, without warning the accused stabbed the deceased with
a knife which later caused the latters death. The counsel of the accused
pleads for an acquittal on the ground that the accused should be exempt from
criminal liability because at the precise time he stabbed de Lira, the accused
lost his senses and he simply did not know what he was doing. His counsel
claimed that after Renegado was clubbed on the forehead, he suffered from
head injury which produced ill-effects.


ISSUE(s):
(1) WON the accused is exempt from criminal liability on the ground of
insanity.

(2) What are the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present in the
case.

HELD:
(1) No. Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the
least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to
discern, or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will, mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. In the case at
bar, it just shows that Renegado is a man of violent temper who can be easily
provoked to violence for no valid reason at all. Thus in People vs. Cruz, this
Court held that breaking glasses and smashing dishes are simply
demonstrations of an explosive temper and do not constitute clear and
satisfactory proof of insanity; they are indications of the passionate nature of
the accused.

In the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or became
demented a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime, it is
presumed that he was in a normal condition of mind.

(2) The killing of Mamerto de Lira is qualified by evident premeditation. Here,
the accused has more or less sixty-four hours to ponder over his plan and
listen to the advice of his co-employees and of his own conscience, and such
length of time was more than sufficient for him to reflect on his intended
revenge.
There is treachery committed. There is treachery where the victim who was
not armed was never in a position to defend himself or offer resistance, nor to
present risk or danger to the accused when assaulted. The accused killed the
deceased while he was eating and his back faced towards him.
There was an assault upon a person in authority. A teacher either of a public
or of a duly recognized private school is a person in authority.The mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.

People vs Gonzalez March 19, 1990

Facts:The appellant is appealing to the court regarding his participation in the
killing of a certain LolyPenacerrada. He claims that he did not participate in
the killing based on the claim that he was not present in the said act. The
antecedent facts are as follows:-

At around 9:00 p.m. of February 21, 1981, BartolomePaja, barangay captain
of Brgy.Tipacla,Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened by two of the accused (Augusto
and Fausta). Paja learns that Fausta killed their landlord, Lloyd Penacerrada,
and would like to surrender to authorities. Knife used in killing was seen, and blood
was found smeared on Faustas dress.
-Paja immediately ordered a nephew to take spouses to the police at the
Municipal Hall inPoblacon, Ajay, where the couple informed the police on duty
of the incident.
-Several patrolmen, along with Paja and Augusto proceeded to the residence
at SitioNabitasan where the killing incident allegedly occurred, and found the
body of the deceased, clad in underwear, sprawled face down inside the
bedroom .
-Group stayed for an hour in which the scene was inspected, and a rough
sketch of the area was made.
-The next day, a patrolman, accompanied by a photographer, went back to the
scene for further investigations. Fausta was brought back to the police station.
-The autopsy of the deceased was performed at 11:20 a.m. Report shows the
following:
Sixteen wounds: five fatal as they penetrated the internal organs
Multiple puncture, stab, incision, and lacerated wounds-

The day after the autopsy, Augusto appeared before the sub-station and
voluntarily surrendered to Police Corporal Sazon for detention and protective
custody for having been involved in the killing of the deceased. Augusto
requests to be taken to where Fausta was already detained. Based on the
investigations conducted, an information for murder dated August 26, 1981,
was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo against the spouses. However, they pleaded not
guilty. Before the trial, however, a certain Jose Huntoria presented himself to the
wife of the deceased. Huntoria claims to be a witness of the killing, and on
October 6, 1981, volunteers as a witness for the prosecution. A reinvestigation
of the case was called, in which several more were filed as accused, including
the appellant. All the accused except for Lenida pleaded not guilty.

At the trial, the prosecution presented Dr. Jesus Rojas, the physician who
conducted the autopsy on the body, Paja, the patrolmen and constabulary
members who joined in the investigation, the widow, and Huntoria. Dr. Rojas
testified that he performed the autopsy at around 11:20 a.m. on Feb. 1981
after the deceased was taken to the municipal hall. He found 4 puncture
wounds, 7 stab wounds, 4 incisions, and1 laceration; five of these were fatal
wounds. Rojas admitted one of two possibilities:-

Only one weapon might have caused all the wounds-

Multiple instruments were used due to the number and different characteristics
The brunt of the prosecutions case rested on Huntorias alleged eyewitness account of
the
incident, which was as follows:-

Testified on July 27, 1982; at 5 pm on Feb. 21, 1981, he left his work at Brgy.
Central, and walked home, taking a short-cut.
-While passing at the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses home at around 8:00 pm, he
heard cries for help. Curiosity prompted him to approach the place where the
shouts were from.
-15-20 m away from the scene, he hid himself behind a clump of banana
trees, and saw all the accused ganging upon the deceased near a threshing
platform. He said he clearly recognized all the accused as the place was
awash in moonlight.-

After stabbing and hacking the victim, the accused lifted his body and carried
it to the house. Huntoria then left home. Upon reaching his house, he related
what he saw to his wife and mother before going to sleep.
-Eight months after the incident, bothered by his conscience and the fact that
his father was a tenant of the deceased, he thought of helping the widow. Out
of his own volition, he travelled to the widows house, and related to her what he saw.

Except Fausta who admitted killing the deceased as he was trying to rape
her, the rest denied participation in the crime. The appellant claimed that he
was asleep in his house which was one kilometre away from the scene of the
crime, and he knew of the crime only when his grandchildren went to his
house that night.

The trial court disregarded the version of the defense; it believed the
prosecutions version. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellant
contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of the
testimony of the lone witness, and in not appreciating his defense of alibi. The
Court found no merit in the errors, and rejected defense of alibi. Worsening
this is that the appellate court found the sentence erroneous, and upgraded
the penalty to that of murder
reclusion temporal/death. The case is now brought upon certification by the
Court of Appeals, hence the appeal.

Issue(s): Whether or not the client, under the evidence presented, has
committed the felony of murder.

Held: No, he has not.

Ratio:

Courts analysis of the evidence:
-Investigation conducted left much to be desired. Centeno gave the date
of commission as March 21, 1981. The sketch made was troubling, as it did
not effectively indicate the extent of the blood stains in the scenes of crime.
This would have added a lot of weight to any one of the versions of the
incident.

Sazon, who claimed that Gonzales surrendered to him, failed to state clearly
the reason forthe surrender. It may even be possible that Augusto
surrendered just so he could be safe from the victims kin. Sazon also
admitted that Augusto never mentioned to him the participation of other
persons in the killing.
-Rojas statement showed two possibilities for the killing. Faustas admission
that she was the only killer is plausible. Furthermore, there were only five fatal
wounds, which will be discussed later.
-Huntorias testimony, of which the prosecutions argument solely rests, needs
to be examined further. Huntorias claims in his testimony did not exactly
match with those from his cross-examination. He first claimed that he
recognized the people involved. However, in the cross-examination, he only
saw flashes. This implies that he may not have recognized anyone at all. As
such, Huntorias testimony could not place a definite act committed or
contributed by the appellant in the killing of the deceased. On the criminal
liability of the appellant:-
There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that establishes the criminal
liability of the appellant as a principal for direct participation under Art. 17,
para.1 of the Revised PenalCode.
-Furthermore, there is nothing in the findings or evidence that inculpates him
by inducement, under paragraph 2 of the same article. Based on the definition
of felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecutions evidence
could not establish intent nor fault. Recall that the elements of felonies
include:
An act or omission
Act or omission must be punishable

Act is performed or omission incurred by deceit or fault-

The lone witness could not properly establish any acts or omissions done by
the appellant. He stated that he does not know who hacked or stabbed the
victim, thus implying that he does not know what the appellant did. With this,
the essential elements of felonies may not even be present.
-Furthermore, the fact that there were five stab wounds and six accused would
imply that one of them may not have caused a grave wound (especially given
the statement of the physician). This may have been the appellant, and given
that there is no evidence that the appellant caused any of the wounds,
coupled with the prosecutions failure to prove the presence of conspiracy
(that is, how many people actually took part in the killing), it weakens the
arguments against the appellant. On the lone witness:
-Huntorias credibility as a witness is tarnished by two points:

He came out eight months after the killing. He claims that he feared for
his life, but there was no proof that he was being threatened, nor was
the length of time reasonable given the circumstances.
He is not exactly a disinterested/neutral witness. He admitted to being a
tenant of the deceased, and stated that one of the reasons why he
testified was because the victim was his landlord.-

Under our socioeconomic set-up, a tenant owes the source of his livelihood
from his landlord. As such, they would do everything to get the landlords to
their favour. Posing as a Criminal Law I-E Prof. Arreza witness would have
been a convenient way to do this, especially as he ceased to be employed as
early as May 1981.Finally, based on Philippine customs and traditions, it is
unlikely for the appellant to be in the scene of the crime, as under our family
culture, aging parents are usually sheltered and insulated from possible harm.
It is improbable for the accused to bring their aging father when they were
clearly in better shape than he was, and it was unlikely for the appellant to
offer his services as they were more or less enough to handle what could
have been a perceived enemy. Although alibi is a weak defense, in cases like
this where the participation of the appellant is not clear, it may be considered.
In light of the evidence on record, it may be sufficient for an acquittal. Decision
of the CA is reversed and set aside. Appellant acquitted. Costs de officio.