FACTS:
On October 15, 1908, around 11 p.m., Macario Labitoria was awakened by two individuals requesting shelter at his house in Tayabas. When Labitoria opened his door to identify them, Toribio Abanto, who was already by the staircase, suddenly struck Labitoria on the forehead with a wooden stick. As Labitoria fell backward, Abanto entered the house through the open door and seized him by the throat. Urbano Quiambao, a guest, intervened, striking Abanto, who then fell wounded. Labitoria reported the incident, and Abanto was subsequently charged with forcible entry of a dwelling. The trial court found Abanto guilty, imposing a penalty of five years of prision correccional and a fine, considering the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. Abanto appealed, denying his guilt and claiming he was the one maltreated, an assertion found to be false and contradictory to his own previous testimony in another case.

ISSUE:
Whether Toribio Abanto is guilty of the crime of forcible entry of a dwelling committed with violence, specifically considering that the door of the house was already open and there was no previous express opposition or prohibition from the owner.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court, finding Toribio Abanto guilty of forcible entry of a dwelling committed with violence.

The Court ruled that:
1. The crime of forcible entry of a dwelling, as defined by Article 491, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, does not require that the door of the house should be closed or that there should be a previous express opposition or prohibition on the part of the owner.
2. The crime is committed if an individual introduces himself into a dwelling against the will of the tenant, even if the door is open. Entering a house with violence and assaulting the tenant clearly constitutes entry against the tenant’s will, rendering any tacit or express consent impossible.
3. Abanto’s actions striking Labitoria with a stick and then entering to seize him by the throat demonstrably constituted forcible entry with violence.
4. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was correctly applied by the trial judge, as the crime was perpetrated at a late hour and in the silence of the night, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree.