ANNANG, MARILYN P.

marilynannang@yahoo.com

LW EXER 4

ARGUMENTS
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah
Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder.
Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that in order for
the act to be justified, the requisites must be present: 1) Unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the unlawful aggression; and 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. If the victim was really a robber, forcing his way into the
room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful aggression, there would have
been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home and the
knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. And
ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code,
there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making the
defense.
The court applied the legal maxims: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the
act itself does not make man guilty unless his intention were so. and; Actus me
incito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me against my will is not my act.
Ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault
or carelessness. 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 his legitimate
right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have
been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not
be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in
falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend
himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his
property and the property under his charge. The act done by Ah Chong was merely an
act done due to Honest Mistake of Fact.
DISSENTING OPINION
The writer believes that according to the facts of the case, the crime committed
was reckless imprudence resulting in Homicide. A Culpable felony. Ah Chong did not
act with intent to kill. In attacking with a knife the person who was accustomed to
enter said room without any justifiable motive, he did not take into consideration that
he might injure or kill the person. While the act was done without malice, Ah Chong
was not justified in attacking with a knife and willfully kill the person behind the
door.
The acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression by the
defendant under the erroneous belief on the part of the accused that the person who
assaulted him was a malefactor. Hence, Ah Chongs acts incurred responsibility and
constituted real negligence. Therefore, he must suffer the consequences of his acts.