G.R. No. 12697 ; September 10, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENITO BARNEDO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On or about midnight of June 2, 1916, the defendants broke into a house where a mother and her two daughters lived. Their admitted purpose was to have carnal relations with the three women. The defendants maltreated the women but subsequently desisted from their original criminal intent and left the premises. The prosecution charged the defendants with a crime based on these acts.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants can be convicted of the crime charged (trespass to a dwelling) despite their original criminal motive being distinct from the offense as defined in the information.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court modified the lower court’s judgment. The defendants are guilty of a violation of paragraph 2, Article 491 of the Penal Code (trespass to dwelling). The Court, citing U.S. vs. Arceo and U.S. vs. Ticson, held that while the defendants’ motive was to commit rape, the act they actually committeda forcible trespass into the dwelling of the victimsconstitutes a separate and complete offense. The criminal motive does not override the specific offense that was clearly perpetrated.

The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present, with no extenuating circumstances. The penalty imposed was the minimum of the maximum period of prision correccional. Each accused was sentenced to four years, nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional, a fine of two hundred pesos (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency), and to pay one-fourth of the costs.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.