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 victim‘s 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 he‘ll 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 latter‘s 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 Fausta‘s 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 prosecution‘s case rested on Huntoria‘s 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 widow‘s 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 prosecution‘s 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:

Court‘s 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 victim‘s 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. Fausta‘s admission that she was the only killer is plausible. Furthermore, there were only five fatal wounds, which will be discussed later. -Huntoria‘s testimony, of which the prosecution‘s argument solely rests, needs to be examined further. Huntoria‘s 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, Huntoria‘s 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 prosecution‘s 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 prosecution‘s 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: -Huntoria‘s 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.