UNITED STATES v. LUCIANO BARBERAN G.R. No. L-5790 December 16, 1910 PDF
UNITED STATES v. LUCIANO BARBERAN G.R. No. L-5790 December 16, 1910 PDF
Benaventes wife, and one of his daughters who was very young, remained in the house,
accompanied only by a nephew of his, named Celestino Basco, and at the customary hour they
retired for the night to the room which was separated, as aforesaid, from the dining room, and
barred the door communicating with the latter, as well as all the windows of the house. At about
1 oclock that night Basco, hearing a noise, awoke his aunt, saying that he believed that there
was some stranger in the room. By the light which Basco had lit they saw a man hiding behind a
column who, on being held by Benaventes wife, gave her a push and escaped through the same
window by which he had entered and which had been left partly open. This window, like all the
others of the room, was in the outer wall of the house, about 3 varas from the ground. The
defendant, climbing over the fence which inclosed the lower part of the house, raised himself to
the window, which was fastened by a transverse piece of wood.
"It appears that the defendant made use of a weapon to open that window by applying it to the
ends of both sections, which were joined, and, as the window bolt was half worn-out, he was
able to raise it and thus opened the window, breaking the bolt; that is to say, between the crack in
the wall of the house and the edge of the window a mark was seen which was left by some
instrument used to raise the window catch (pp. 23 and 24 of the record)."
cralaw virtua1aw library
The crime committed falls squarely within the provisions of article 491, paragraph 2, Penal
Code. It was perpetrated with violence, this word being understood in the sense already
established in the reported cases. (U. S. v. Clauck, 6 Phil. Rep., 486, and decisions of the
supreme court of Spain of April 5, 1890, and February 8, 1899.)
Two aggravating circumstances were taken into account by the trial court, to wit, that of the
crime having been executed at night, and by scaling a wall. But this last circumstance, in the
present case, is the specific and essential element of the forcible entry itself, so that it must not be
considered as an additional circumstance of the crime. However, its omission does not modify
the degree of the penalty imposed by the judgment.
Hence, the judgment appealed from, which sentences Luciano Barberan to four years nine
months and eleven days of prision correccional, to the payment of a fine of 2,500 pesetas, or, in