Name: Grande, Mhel Rose Camille G.

C/Y/S: BALM 4-A.

Date: July 03, 2015

Subject: Introduction to Criminal Law

The United States VS. Ah Chong

G.R. No. L-5272
March 19, 1910
FACTS:
Ah Chong worked as a cook at the Officers quarters No. 27 , Fort Mc Kinley, Rizal Province
together with Pascual Gulaberto who was employed as a house boy or muchacho. The said place was a
detached house around 40 meters away from the nearest building. It also served as the officers mess
room. No one slept in the house except the two of them who jointly occupied a small room toward the
rear of the building, the door of which was not furnished with a bolt or lock so they just attached a small
hook to serve as lock.
On August 14, 1908, around 10o clock in the evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awaken because
someone had been trying to open the room. He asked who is it but none replied. Instead, the stanger kept
on forcing his entry. Ah Chong believed that it was a burglar, and shouted again if you enter, I will kill
you! Again none replied. Upon entry and out of fear Ah Chong get a kitchen knife which he kept under
his pillow and attacked the intruder who turned out to be Gualberto. Gualberto ran out upon the porch
heavily wounded. Upon recognizing Gualberto, He immediately called his employers and dressed
Gualbertos wound. However, Gualberto died due to his wound on the following day at the hospital.
The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had
an understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his
companion with his identity.
The defendant admitted to the crime but said he did it under the impression that Gualberto was a
thief forcing the door to open despite his warning. He was found guilty by the trial court of simple
homicide and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact.
HELD:
Yes. The rule is that one is not criminally liable if he acted without malice, negligence, and
imprudence. In the present case, the accused 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.
As stated in the facts, he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of
his act. Moreover, the accused cannot be said to have been negligent or reckless as the facts as he saw
them threatens his person and his property. Under such circumstances, there is no criminal liability, as the
ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.

Name: Grande, Mhel Rose Camille G.

C/Y/S: BALM 4-A.

Date: July 03, 2015

Subject: Introduction to Criminal Law

The People Of The Philippines VS. Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta
G.R. No. L-47722
July 27, 1943
FACTS:
Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the
Philippine Constabulary were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict, Anselmo
Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the suspected house then proceeded
to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis and
Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers which resulted
to the victims death. The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Oanis and Galanta were to be held guilty of murder with mitigating circumstance.
HELD:
Yes. Ignorantia facti excusat or ignorance mistake of fact does not apply to the case. It applies
only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness appellants found no circumstances
whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The fact that person in the room being then
asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves,
and could even affect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim
was unarmed.
New Rules of Court, Rule 109, Section 2 paragraph 2 provides, No unnecessary or unreasonable
force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint
than is necessary for his detention. In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not
permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of
the law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified. A peace officer cannot claim
exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest.