G.R. No. 2089. November 07, 1905

Enrique Rijano was charged by the provincial fiscal of Occidental Negros with forcible entry of a dwelling and lesiones leves, committed as follows: At 8 o’clock on the night of March 19,1904, the accused, armed with a talibon,
went to the house of Lamberta Balcaba in the barrio of Granada,
municipality of Bacolod, and called to all the men who might be in the
house to come down. None doing so, there being only women in the house,
he went upstairs and, cutting the fastening which secured the door,
entered the house, saying to the occupants that they were going to die
at his hands. Dolores Ganat stated that they had not done anything
wrong, and the accused struck her across the shoulders with the back of
his bolo. He then caught the head of a child 2 years of age, the son of
Fausta Martinez, and was about to cut its throat when Lamberta
interfered. The accused thereupon struck her a blow with his bolo,
injuring her slightly at the base of the thumb on her left hand. This
wound was with medical assistance cured in seven days. The accused then
left the house in search of Fausta Martinez, who had run away with her
son, for the purpose of killing her. The defendant was, however, met in
the street by Pedro Toledo, who took him to his home; all in violation
of law.

Judgment was rendered June 1, 1904, sentencing the accused to three years six months and twenty-one days imprisonment (prision correccional),
to a fine of 1,301 pesetas with accessories, and in case of insolvency
to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, the latter not to exceed
one-third of the period of the principal penalty, and in no case to be
more than one year, and to pay the costs, the accused being allowed
one-half of the time he spent as a detention prisoner, running from
March 23, 1904, until the entry of final judgment. From this sentence
the defendant appealed.

The evidence shows that about midnight on the 19th of March, 1904,
the accused approached the house in which Fausta Martinez, Lamberta
Balcaba, and Dolores Ganat resided, and ordered all of the men to come
down; that, no men being there, the accused after thrusting his bolo
through the wall of the house, the latter being of nipa, went up the
steps and, finding the door closed, cut the fastening that held it;
that against the inmates’opposition he entered the house; that he
struck Dolores Ganat across the shoulders with his bolo and then,
catching one of Martinez’s children, was about to cut its throat, but
owing to its cries and the intervention of Lamberta Balcaba, desisted ;
that he then struck Lamberta with his bolo, inflicting a slight wound
on the thumb of the left hand, whereupon Fausta Martinez caught her two
children and jumped from the house, hiding herself along the banks of
the Idianganan River. The foregoing is corroborated by said Martinez
and Ganat, they adding that they were acquainted with the accused, but
that he was not in the habit of visiting their house and that they had
had no quarrel with him. They also stated that after the assault he
left the house and was met in the street by Pedro Toledo, who, at the
request of the mother of the accused, Joaquina Toreja, took him home.

The facts set forth constitute the crime of allanamiento de morada
(forcible entry of a dwelling) committed with intimidation and
violence, as defined in article 491, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code.
The defendant after ordering all the men who might be in the house in
question to come down, an order which is usually given by such people
when they intend to forcibly enter a house, seeing that there were no
men, thrust his bolo through the walls of the house, went upstairs,
and, cutting the fastening which secured the door, entered the house
against the opposition of the occupants and threatened the latter.
There is no question therefore but that the crime of forcible entry of
a dwelling with intimidation and violence has been committed in this
case.

From the fact that an individual enters a house and threatens the
occupant with death and compels him to flee, it is to be inferred
without the slightest doubt that the entry was against the will of the
occupant, and therefore constitutes the crime of forcible entry of a
dwelling, with intimidation. Such is the doctrine laid down by the
supreme court of Spain in judgments dated December 19, 1872, and
December 1,1882.

The accused pleaded not guilty, but notwithstanding his denial the
evidence shows conclusively his guilt as the author of the crime. He
confessed that he was on the ground floor of the house, which tends to
prove the truth of the accusation that against the will of the
occupants, two of whom he abused without any reason therefor, he forced
an entry into the house in question.

In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the
extenuating and aggravating circumstances, the judgment of the trial
court should be affirmed. The circumstance of drunkenness contended for
by the defense can not be considered present, it not having been proven
either that the accused was intoxicated on the night of the occurrence
or that drunkenness was not habitual with him.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs of this
instance. Let the cause be returned to the trial court with a certified
copy of this decision and of the judgment to be entered therein, for
execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Willard, JJ., concur.