There
are several ways by which a crime may be committed. One is due to
negligence or lack of care. Example is reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide, such as when a pedestrian is ran over and killed by a car
which was being driven recklessly. Here, there is no intent to do wrong.
What is being punished is the lack of care which led to the death of an
innocent victim. Another kind of offense called mala prohibita is
one where there is neither fault nor negligence or lack of care, but is
a crime only because the law says so. Example is the smuggling of, say,
a car into the country. The bringing in of a car is not evil. Neither
is there negligence or recklessness in the act. But it is a crime
regardless of the lack of any criminal intent or negligence because the
law prohibits the importation of a car without payment of proper taxes.
*****
In this class of offenses, no crime is committed when no wrong was
intended. This happens when, for instance, there was mistake of fact.
This was illustrated in the very early case of United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March 19, 1910
which was decided by our Supreme Court more than a century ago. (Note:
The Philippines was then a colony of America, and criminal cases in our
country were prosecuted in the name of the United States).
*****
The accused, Ah Chong, a Chinese in the Philippines, was employed as a
cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province.
Also employed at the same place as a houseboy named Pascual Gualberto.
"Officers' quarters No. 27" was a detached house situated some 40 meters
from the nearest building, and in August, 1908, was occupied solely as
an officers' mess or club. No one slept in the house except the two
servants, who jointly occupied a small room toward the rear of the
building. The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt
or lock, and the occupants, as a measure of security, had attached a
small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of
reinforcing this somewhat insecure means of fastening the door by
placing against it a chair. In the room there was but one small window,
which, like the door, opened on the porch. Aside from the door and
window, there were no other openings of any kind in the room.
*****
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10 o'clock, the accused,
who had retired for the night, was suddenly awakened by someone 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. Due to the heavy growth of vines along the front
of the porch, the room was very dark, and the accused, 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 the moment he was struck just
above the knee by the edge of the chair which had been placed against
the door. In the darkness and confusion the accused thought that the
blow had been inflicted by the person who had forced the door open, whom
he supposed to be a burglar, though in the light of after events, 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 kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the accused
struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his
roommate, Pascual. Pascual ran out upon the porch and fell down on the
steps in a desperately wounded condition, followed by the accused, who
immediately recognized him in the moonlight. Seeing that Pascual was
wounded, he called to his employers who slept in the next house, No. 28,
and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's
wounds.
*****
The accused then and there admitted that he had stabbed his roommate,
but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was a robber
because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite
defendant's warnings. He insisted that he struck the fatal blow without
any intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful right of
self defense. There had been several robberies in Fort McKinley not long
prior to that date, one of which took place in a house in which the
accused was employed as cook. According to the accused, it was because
of these repeated robberies he kept a knife under his pillow for his
personal protection.
*****
In acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court held that that there can
be no doubt that accused would be entitled to complete exemption from
criminal liability for the death of the intruder, if the intruder who
forced open the door of his room had been in fact a dangerous thief, as
the accused believed him to be. No one, under such circumstances, would
doubt the right of the accused to resist and repel such an intrusion,
bearing in mind that the supposed thief still forced open the door
notwithstanding accused’s thrice-repeated warning to desist, and his
threat that he would kill the intruder if he persisted in his attempt.
In the darkness of the night, in a small room, with no means of escape,
with the perceived dangerous thief advancing upon him despite his
warning, the accused would have been wholly justified in using any
available weapon to defend himself from such an assault, and in striking
promptly, without waiting for the thief to discover his whereabouts and
deliver the first blow. There was no "evil mind" behind the killing,
but only mistake of fact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment