The defendant is accused of the crime of robbery with physical injuries the information alleging "that on or about May 3, 1925, in the sitio of Tikong, municipal district of Parang,  Province of Sulu,  Philippine Islands,  the herein defendant did  willfully,  unlawfully, and criminally and with intent of  gain, through force, violence, and intimidation upon persons, compel one Mora by  the name of Ulad to deliver P20 to him, as said Mora Ulad  did in fact deliver to him P2.50 by fear, and at the act of delivering said sum and  on the occasion of said robbery, said  defendant  did willfully,  unlawfully, and  criminally  assault and  attack said Mora Ulad,  striking her cut blows on the neck and other parts of the body, thus inflicting wounds on  said parts of the  body, which required medical attendance  for over thirty days,  and prevented her from performing  her usual work for a like period of time, and produced  deformity on her neck.  That the commission of this crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and  of  the same  having been  committed in the  dwelling of the offended Mora Ulad."

The court below found  the  accused guilty as charged in the information and sentenced him to suffer ten years and one day of presidio mayor and to return to the offended party the  sum of P2.50,  and to pay  the costs.  From this judgment  the defendant appeals and his counsel makes the following  assignments of error:

"(1) That  the trial court erred in  not acquitting the accused on  account of reasonable doubt.

"(2)  That  the  trial  court erred in  finding  the accused guilty of robbery under article 503  (4) of the Penal Code and  sentencing him  to suffer imprisonment for ten years and one day  of presidio mayor, and

"(3)  That the  trial court erred in  finding  the accused guilty of  a crime not charged nor  comprehended in  the information."

As to the first assignment of error it is our opinion that the evidence  leaves no doubt as to  the defendant's guilt. It is true  that the conviction rests almost exclusively upon the testimony of  the offended party, but the accused was her neighbor, she had ample opportunity to identify him, and, as far  as the record shows, she had no motive to falsely  charge  the defendant  with the crime.  The  defendant attempted to prove  an alibi,  but  the  story does not seem very probable and his  witnesses contradicted each other on important points.

The second and third assignments of error rest upon an erroneous interpretation of paragraph 4 of article 503 of the Penal Code.  The paragraph reads as follows:

"A penalty ranging from presidio mayor in its medium degree to cadena temporal in its minimum degree, whenever the violence  or intimidation employed in committing the robbery shall have been  carried to a degree  clearly unnecessary to  the  commission of the crime, or when in the course of  the perpetration of the' crime the  offenders shall have inflicted upon any persons not connected with its commission any  of  the physical injuries  falling  within the terms of paragraphs three and four of  article four hundred and sixteen."

The appellant  contends that  the  information does not allege that violence or intimidation employed in committing the crime was "carried to a degree  unnecessary to the commission of  the crime."  That is true, but it  is alleged in the information that  the wound on the neck of the offended party caused  a  deformity and the lower court found that the deformity existed.  This being the case, the defendant was  properly  convicted under  the paragraph quoted in  connection with paragraph 3 of article 416.

The penalty imposed by the court is in accordance with law and the findings of the court below are fully sustained by the evidence.   The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed with the costs against  the  appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña,  C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor,  Johns,  Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.