GR 1491; (March, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1491 : March 5, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. LORENZO ARCEO ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of February 20, 1903, the defendants-appellants, Lorenzo Arceo and others, armed with a gun and bolos, entered the house of Alejo Tiongson without permission. At the time, Alejo and his wife had retired, while Marcela San Andres (Alejo’s sister-in-law) was still awake. Upon entry, one of the accused extinguished the light in the house. After Marcela awoke the occupants, one of the defendants wounded Alejo Tiongson with a bolo. The accused also took money and forcibly took Marcela San Andres from the house into the fields where she was ill-treated. The defense presented an alibi, which the trial court found not credible.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused are guilty of the crime of entering the dwelling of another against the owner’s will with violence and intimidation, punishable under Article 491(2) of the Penal Code.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the crime under Article 491 is committed not only by the act of unauthorized entry itself but also by the conduct of the intruder immediately after entering. The accused, by entering armed at night without consent and immediately committing acts of violence and intimidation (wounding the owner and ill-treating an occupant), are guilty under Article 491(2). The Court emphasized the fundamental inviolability of the home, stating that no one may enter another’s dwelling without express consent, except under specific legal exceptions or public policy grounds (e.g., sanitary purposes). The Court distinguished this crime from common-law burglary, noting that under the Penal Code, the mere unauthorized entry is punishable, and nighttime is an aggravating circumstance, not an element of the crime. The Court disagreed with the trial court’s application of the extenuating circumstance under Article 11 (lack of instruction/education) in favor of the defendants. Considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, the Supreme Court imposed the maximum penalty. The modified sentence imposed on each defendant is six years of prision correccional, a fine of 271 pesos, and costs, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.