The accused appeals from the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing him, for the crime of theft of articles and money amounting to P33.50 belonging to  Hong Liong, to the  penalty of  from  four months and one day of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to two years and four months  of prision correctional, as the maximum, with the costs.

Hong Liong lived with other Chinese, among them Tee Chuang Tian, in house No.  621, Magdalena Street, Manila. On the night of August 21,  1935, Hong Liong and his companions slept with the windows open  and  the door locked. At dawn of said date, Tee Chuang Tian, having noted that the door was  open, awoke his companions.  Hong Liong noted that his pants, where he had placed his watch valued at P28  and a wallet containing P3 in  bills and two sweestakes tickets  which he had in  his  coat, had disappeared.  Hong Liong later found his pants, minus the watch, under the house, and the wallet, minus  the  bills and  the sweepstakes tickets, under the bed.

At  that same dawn, policeman  Danganan, then on  duty in the streets of Manila,  having seen the accused  in a suspicious attitude, coming out of  several houses, placed him under arrest, finding a  watch, four one-peso bills and small change  amounting to P1.25  in his possession.  After having been  submitted  to  an investigation in the police station, the accused admitted that he stole the watch found in his possession and the bills amounting to P3 from the house No. 621, Magdalena  Street, by  passing through the window of the water  closet.  While the investigation was in progress, notice that a robbery had been committed in the house No. 621, Magdalena Street, was received in said police station.

There is  no doubt that it was the  accused, who stole the watch, bills and sweepstakes tickets belonging to Hong Liong  in the house where the  latter lived.  The information filed against the accused is for the crime of robbery. The court,  however,  found that the crime committed is theft and imposed the penalty  corresponding thereto upon the accused.

After  having examined the  evidence, this court is of the opinion that the crime committed is  robbery as charged in the information, the accused having entered the house through the window  which is  not intended for entrance, as admitted by him in the police  station.  Such must have been the case because the door was locked from within and it could not have been opened  from the outside to enable entrance through it without violence.  Hong Liong testified that before  he went to sleep he  told Tee Chuang Tian to lock the door.   Tee  Chuang Tian testified that he really locked the door before he went to sleep that  night.  This shows  that  the accused entered the house through one of the  open windows,  as  admitted by him.  Furthermore, there is  evidence that there were finger prints noted on one of the windows.  The  the door might have been opened from within by one of the residents of the house, thus permitting the accused to enter through it, is a mere possibility which  cannot be accepted as  a  fact without affirmative evidence to that effect.

These facts constitute the  crime of robbery defined and punished in article 299, paragraph (a), subsection 1, of the Revised Penal  Code,  it having been  committed without arms and the value of the articles taken being less than P250.  The aggravating circumstance  of recidivism, the presence of which is admitted by the  accused, should be taken into consideration.

Wherefore,  modifying the  appealed  judgment, the  appellant is sentenced, pursuant to the provision above cited, to the penalty of from one year, as the minimum, to three years, six months  and twenty-one days of prision correccional, as the maximum, with the costs.   So ordered.

Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Recto, JJ., concur.