Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AH CHONG, defendant-appellant.

CARSON, J.:

The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a cook at Fort Mc Kinley, together with the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, who
was employed as a house boy. The defendant and his roommate, Gualberto, always place a chair against the door to
reinforce the small hook on the inside of it. Since there has been a series of robberies in Fort McKinley, the defendant kept a
knife under his pillow. One night, the defendant was suddenly awakened by someone forcibly trying to open the door. He
called out twice for the identity of the intruder, and fearing that it might be a robber, threatened to kill the intruder. At that
same moment, the door was forced open and the defendant was hit by the chair, fearing he was being attacked; he struck
wildly with his hand and fatally wounded the intruder, who turned out to be his roommate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant is criminally liable in killing his roommate.

HELD:

No. The defendant is not criminally liable. It is stated under the Revised Penal Code that mistake of facts relieves the
accused from criminal liability. If the defendant known that the intruder was his roommate, he wouldn’t have tried to kill
him. If the facts were as the defendant claimed them to be, assuming that the intruder forcing his way to the room is a
burglar, the defendant is simply defending himself and his property, and do not have the intention to kill his roommate. With
this, the defendant is not criminally liable and must be acquitted of the crime which he was charged.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants.

MORAN, J.:

FACTS:

In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, the defendants-appellants were ordered to capture an escaped convict, Anselmo
Balagtas. The order given to the defendants-appellants was to arrest the escapee and if overpowered, they have to
follow the instructions in the telegram, which is to get the notorious criminal, dead or alive. When the defendants-
appellants went to the place where the escapee was allegedly hiding. The Chief of Police Oanis, together with his co-
accused Cpl. Galanta, approached the room, and upon seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, withouth
taking the necessary measures to know the identity of the man, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers. The
sleeping man turned out to be Serapio Tecson, an innocent man and not the notorious criminal the defendant-appellants
were trying to apprehend.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendants-appellants are criminally liable for the death of an innocent man.

HELD:
Yes. Though the defendants-appellants contends that they acted in innocent mistake of facts in accordance with their
official duties, but this only applies when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. Given the facts of the
case at bar, the deceased was sleeping at the time of the incident, thus, the defendants-appellants have ample time to
verify the identity of the man and avoid bloodshed. In addition, the defendants-appellants were instructed to arrest the
notorious criminal and only to capture him dead or alive if he resisted or overpowered them. With this, the court
decides that the defendants-appellants are guilty of murder.