GR 8469; (September, 1913)

EN BANC

G.R. No. 8469; September 12, 1913

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DEOGRACIAS PANES, defendant-appellant.

Felix Gurrea for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

This defendant was charged with the crime of entering the dwelling house of another against the latter’s consent. The complaint alleged:

That at or about midnight of September 18, 1912, in the municipality of Passi, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the accused did willfully, unlawfully, and criminally enter the dwelling house of Inocencia Guillan without her knowledge or consent and against her will, not in order to avoid serious injury to himself, the inmates, or a third person, nor in order to render some service to humanity or to justice; and once inside said house, the said accused did with a stick in his hand awaken and threaten the inmates thereof, who were asleep, thereby producing a serious scene and fright among the inmates, who at the time were all women; a deed committed in violation of law.

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable James S. Powell, judge, found the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentenced him to be imprisoned for a period of three moths of arresto mayor, to pay a fine of 500 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed and in this court makes the following assignments of error:

1. The court erred in including in its findings the fact that the herein accused entered Inocencia Guillan’s house without her consent.

2. The lower court erred in finding the herein defendant-appellant guilty of the crime charged.

These two assignments of error, we think, may well be considered together. They present the question whether or not, under the facts adduced during the trial of the cause, the defendant is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint.

The offense with which the defendant is charged falls under article 491 of the Penal Code. Said article provides a punishment for any private person who shall enter the dwelling house of another against the latter’s will. In order that the alleged offense shall fall under said article, the offender must (a) be a private person; (b) enter the house of another; and (c) enter the house of another against the latter’s will. In the present case the defendant was a private person and it is admitted that he entered the house of another. The only question that remains is did he enter the house of another against the other’s will. An examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause discloses:

That on the night of the 18th day of September, 1912, at about 9 o’clock, Inocencia Guillan and her son were in their house alone, her husband being absent; that at about 9 o’clock she closed the door leading into her house and with her son went into her room and retired for the night; that soon thereafter she was awakened by the calls of her sister and the voice of the defendant, who was then and there in her house, making inquires for one Maria; that conversation immediately ensued between the defendant, Inocencia Guillan, and her sister about the said Maria, which conversation soon resulted in a quarrel, during which the defendant struck the sister of Inocencia with a stick or cane. Evidently much more occurred in the house at that particular time than has been put in the record, for the reason that it appears that because of what had occurred in the house two policemen appeared upon the scene, as well as many of the neighbors. From what is said by the parties interested, in their declaration, there seems to have been no reason for arousing the attention of the police nor the curiosity of the neighbors. However, without reference to said quarrel and the things which occurred which attracted the attention of the police and the curiosity of the neighbors, we believe that the following facts were proved beyond a reasonable doubt;

1. That on the night of the 18th day of September, 1912, Inocencia Guillan closed the door leading into her house at about 9 o’clock p.m. and with her young son retired to her room and her bed for the night; that her husband was not at home at that time; that she closed the door for fear that some one might enter the house.

2. That the defendant, after the door had been closed in the manner and for the reasons stated, without the knowledge or consent of the owner, entered the house of Inocencia Guillan.

The question remaining is: Did the defendant enter said house against the will of the owner?

In the case of United States vs. Villanueva (18 Phil. Rep., 215), this court said that: “It is well-settled general rule that whoever enters the dwelling of another at a late hour of night, after the inmates have retired and closed their doors, does so against their will and in violation of the provisions of article 491 of the Penal Code. Under these circumstances, an express prohibition is not necessary, as such prohibition is presumed.”

In view of the facts established by the record and of the jurisprudence heretofore announced by this court, we are forced to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged and that the sentence of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Moreland, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

CARSON, J., dissenting:

I dissent. I do not think that the evidence sustains a finding that the house was closed for the night, and that the inmates had retired. It would seem that the door was not locked, and that although some of the inmates had retired there were who had not yet done so.

Trent, J., dissents.

Batas Pinas