Halloween's approaching. I like the old creep stuff. "They're coming to get you Barbara.." This one's Jeepers Creepers. I dunno for some reason this movie reminds me of my sister. Who happened to be was here actually in my review pad a week ago. "Why is it that there are dust on your table?... give me that rug over there... and your books! it's all scattered on the couch!!... are these soiled clothes I'm looking at?" hehe. "Ate I wouldn't know where to get it if you arrange those books" Even up to now she still baby's me. My niece kept laughing.
Okay here's the case..
This is another landmark case in Criminal Law. The events in this case happened in 1908, the court decided it in 1910. No no no, this was not decided in the US. If you're trying to figure out why the case was entitled as such and not under People of the Philippines, it's because this crime happened during the American regime. If you'd go back a bit to your college Philippine history class discussions you'd remember we were governed by America through Philippine Commissions then.
Okay here's the case..
This is another landmark case in Criminal Law. The events in this case happened in 1908, the court decided it in 1910. No no no, this was not decided in the US. If you're trying to figure out why the case was entitled as such and not under People of the Philippines, it's because this crime happened during the American regime. If you'd go back a bit to your college Philippine history class discussions you'd remember we were governed by America through Philippine Commissions then.
I think the first Philippine Commission was appointed by then US President William McKinley. Yeah McKinley.. the famous McKinley road in Bonifacio Global City that pass through Dasma? The second was the Taft Commission, of course you all know where that is, some of you may have brawled with its traffic almost everyday. It was I think the The Jones Act of 1916 (Jones Bridge right?) that ended these Commissions replacing it an elected Philippine Senate as the Legislature's upper house and changed the form of our Judiciary.
This case happened during the Taft Commission. I think you can find this in Phil Reports and not in the SCRA. I'm not sure. Worse is if you're directed to look for the original case, and it's recorded in the Official Gazette. Pag sinabing Philippine Gazette, pucha.. maghanda ka na ng gas mask para sa alikabok. Malaki yun libro na yon malalaki din sulat panahon pa yata nila Lolo Manuel L. Quezon yun. Nakakita na ako nun pucha... parang hinihigop ka sa past.. like a portal to the period years or somethin'. Sa bagay, gusto ko yon.. I think I'm a lost soul here in this modern world at times. I think there's had been a mistake there somewhere, I should've been born earlier in those era.. I secretly admire those glamorous circas.. pupunta ka lang sa Quiapo naka americana ka pa.. haha hanep!... planchadong-planchado buhok mo. Ang lalalim ng tagalog nyo "O irog ko.. pagdamutan mo ang aking wagas na pagibig" hahahaha!!!.. taena. Wag lang sa panahon ng Hapon ah.. pucha pagtinapon ako don mag-gigirilya ako.
Tatlo lang yan.. SCRA, PHIL REPORTS, OFFICIAL GAZZETTE. In that order. Ngayon lagay mo na INTERNET before SCRA.. I dunno what their gonna do with those old books probably send them all to the National Library. Wag naman.. pagnagkasunog or ginera tayo & binomba yun.. e di wala na tayong legacy. I think law schools should preserve them kahit it's seldom used now by law students.
Let's really get to the case..
Tatlo yan.. according to Justice Sandoval's book, who also happens to be my teacher in Crim Rev: 1. Error in Personae (Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Identity) Akala mo si Pedro yun pala si Juan, or Akala mo ninanakawan ko yun pala barkada mo lang pala kunyare iniisnatch yun bag mo tapos tatawa nasaksak mo ng ballpen 2. Abrratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow) Maybabarilin ka iba tinamaan. 3. Prater Intentionem (Injurious result is greater than that intended) Sasampalin mo lang na out balance sya tumama ulo sa bato patay.
Ganto nangyare dito..
Si Ah Chong was a cook... in Fort McKinley. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. (mejo paranoid eh) After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. So he called out twice "Who is there?", but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you enter the room, I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed on the door and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife, struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate Pascual Gualberto.
You know when I was reading this case during my freshman year I was wondering why the fuckin' dude wasn't answering. Those were 3 loud calls by Ah Chong actually. There was no account anywhere in the case that the one behind the door was deaf. And I wouldn't think naka headset tong loko na to nakikinig sa i-pod.. ni radio ata na malalaking tubo wala pa non.
I found out in one account it was said that Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on Ah Chong during that time.
Ganon? Alam mo kase minsan mga boy mga bata pa to eh, mga malaro pa to eh. Lalo mga boy na bisaya.. bisaya mama ko kaya alam ko yan eh. Well bisaya din ako ugali ko bisaya namana ko sa mama ko. Elvis ako, elbis, el bisaya. LOL. May mga house boy kase kame na bisaya noon. Ganon.. naglolokohan sila, mga bugoy ba. Siguro naglolokohan din tong dalawang to previously... (hahaha heresay). "Sino yan?".... "Sino sabe yan? magsalita ka!" Tawa ng tawa naman tong isa sa likod ng pinto. "Pag pumasok ka!.. papatayin kita!! FPJ style to loko ka!" Lalo ngayon natuwa sa likod ng pinto si loko, kilig na kilig pa siguro tong bugoy na to. "FPJ pala ah.. ako si Lito Lapid!!" BLAGAG!! Pagpasok na pagpasok ni loko yun pinagsasaksak sya. Tsk tinde.
So seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. (which was the right thing to do.. other than flight) Well according to the account there had been repeated robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took place in a house where Ah Chong was previously employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. (E kusinero yung tao eh what do you expect, natural a kitchen knife would always be his everyday companion.)
You know when I was reading this case during my freshman year I was wondering why the fuckin' dude wasn't answering. Those were 3 loud calls by Ah Chong actually. There was no account anywhere in the case that the one behind the door was deaf. And I wouldn't think naka headset tong loko na to nakikinig sa i-pod.. ni radio ata na malalaking tubo wala pa non.
I found out in one account it was said that Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on Ah Chong during that time.
Ganon? Alam mo kase minsan mga boy mga bata pa to eh, mga malaro pa to eh. Lalo mga boy na bisaya.. bisaya mama ko kaya alam ko yan eh. Well bisaya din ako ugali ko bisaya namana ko sa mama ko. Elvis ako, elbis, el bisaya. LOL. May mga house boy kase kame na bisaya noon. Ganon.. naglolokohan sila, mga bugoy ba. Siguro naglolokohan din tong dalawang to previously... (hahaha heresay). "Sino yan?".... "Sino sabe yan? magsalita ka!" Tawa ng tawa naman tong isa sa likod ng pinto. "Pag pumasok ka!.. papatayin kita!! FPJ style to loko ka!" Lalo ngayon natuwa sa likod ng pinto si loko, kilig na kilig pa siguro tong bugoy na to. "FPJ pala ah.. ako si Lito Lapid!!" BLAGAG!! Pagpasok na pagpasok ni loko yun pinagsasaksak sya. Tsk tinde.
So seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. (which was the right thing to do.. other than flight) Well according to the account there had been repeated robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took place in a house where Ah Chong was previously employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. (E kusinero yung tao eh what do you expect, natural a kitchen knife would always be his everyday companion.)
So the guy was arrested, trial ensued. Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings.
Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with mitigating circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor (prision mayor) the minimum penalty prescribed by law.
ISSUE:
May Ah Chong be held criminally responsible in the case at bar? Did defendant here committed a crime by reason of a mistake as to the facts?
May Ah Chong be held criminally responsible in the case at bar? Did defendant here committed a crime by reason of a mistake as to the facts?
RULING:
The Court said Ah Chong must be acquitted.
The Court said Ah Chong must be acquitted.
By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be.
So meaning if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable (even if basing it now by virtue of Art.11 (1) of the RPC) but would constitute the crime of homicide if the actor had known the true state of the facts like if he knew that it was actually Pascual.
Well the rulebooks say that "A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit."
Voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act. And if there's "malice" then it signifies the intent right? Alright let's throw in some latin legal maxims here..
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC ruling. And the defendant was acquitted. (and that seldom happens)
So meaning if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable (even if basing it now by virtue of Art.11 (1) of the RPC) but would constitute the crime of homicide if the actor had known the true state of the facts like if he knew that it was actually Pascual.
Well the rulebooks say that "A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit."
Voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act. And if there's "malice" then it signifies the intent right? Alright let's throw in some latin legal maxims here..
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. (there was no intent to kill his roommate)
Actus me incito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me against my will is not my act. (it was a form of self defense, thievery was rampant during those days)
Ignorantia facti excusat - ignorance of a fact is an excuse (applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness, he placed the chair on the door and he called out 3 times as warning).
Court said defendant during that time 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. (Beautiful)
Don't forget this. This was a beautiful case in Criminal Law.
Don't forget this. This was a beautiful case in Criminal Law.
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC ruling. And the defendant was acquitted. (and that seldom happens)
