Facts:

The case involves the defendant Antonio Nubla, who was charged with the crime of housebreaking for unlawfully entering the residence of sisters Pilar and Ignacia Sy Pico without their consent. The events took place prior to the court's decision on April 25, 1905. During the trial in the lower court, it was established that Nubla had indeed entered the house against the will of the sisters. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to two months and one day of arresto mayor, as prescribed by paragraph 1 of Article 491 of the Penal Code. However, the Government appealed the decision, arguing that the penalty should be increased under paragraph 2 of the same article, as it was proven that Nubla had used violence against the sisters during the commission of the crime. The lower court, however, ruled that the violence was not a means to commit the crime but rather an act that occurred after the fact, thus not qualifying for the harsher penalty. The Government contende...

Facts:

Parties Involved:

• Complainant and Appellee: The United States
• Defendant and Appellant: Antonio Nubla

Incident:

• Antonio Nubla was charged with the crime of housebreaking for entering the house of Pilar and Ignacia Sy Pico against their will.

Trial Court Findings:

• The trial court found that the defendant entered the house without consent, which constituted housebreaking under paragraph 1 of Article 491 of the Penal Code.
• The court sentenced Nubla to two months and one day of arresto mayor.

Government’s Appeal:

• The Government appealed, arguing that the case should fall under paragraph 2 of Article 491, which prescribes a harsher penalty for housebreaking involving violence or intimidation.
• The Government contended that Nubla exercised violence against the sisters during the commission of the crime.

Trial Court’s Reasoning on Violence:

• The trial court held that the violence used by Nubla was not a means to consummate the crime but was an independent act occurring after the housebreaking.

Complaint Details:

• The complaint did not allege that Nubla committed housebreaking with violence or intimidation, which is required for the application of paragraph 2 of Article 491.

Aggravating Circumstance:

• The court noted that Nubla’s actions involved offense and disregard for the sex of the injured parties, as he laid hands on and ill-treated them.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Specificity of Charges: A defendant cannot be convicted of a crime more serious than the one charged in the complaint. Since the complaint did not allege violence or intimidation, the defendant could only be convicted of simple housebreaking under paragraph 1 of Article 491.
2. Aggravating Circumstances: Violence against the victims, especially when involving disregard for their sex, constitutes an aggravating circumstance that warrants the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree.
3. Subsidiary Imprisonment: In cases of insolvency, subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed, but its duration must not exceed one-third of the principal penalty.