The defendants were charged with the crime of violation, alleged to have been committed as follows:

"On or about March 29 of the present year the said accused did maliciously and criminally pretend to be detectives and proceed to the house of Dorotea de la Cruz and take therefrom herself and her husband, Santos Pascual, under the pretext of conducting them to the town hall; but instead of doing so, conducted them to a remote and solitary spot and there  by means  of force and intimidation  the  two accused alternately lay with the said Dorotea de la Cruz and kept watch  over her husband, who  was  removed from the place where the woman was."

The Hon.  Julio Llorente, judge,  after hearing the  evidence, found the defendants each guilty of the crime charged in the complaint, and sentenced each of them  to be  imprisoned, considering  the  aggravating circumstances of astucia  and despoblado, and the extenuating circumstance of race,  for a period of fourteen years eight months  and one day of reclusion temporal; to  indemnify, jointly  and severally, Dorotea de la Cruz, in the sum of P500, and each to pay one-half the costs.

From that sentence the defendants appealed to  this court. The only question presented here  is a question  of fact, relating to the sufficiency of the evidence.

After a careful consideration of the evidence,  the lower court made the following finding of  facts:

"Early in the evening of March 29, 1910, that is, about 8 o'clock, the herein accused, Pedro Iglesia being armed with a revolver, appeared at the  house  of Santos Pascual and pretending to be detectives required him to  exhibit his personal cedula.  Besides his wife, two other women, Inocencia Fernandez and Marcela Jose, lived in Santos Pascual's house.  The accused asked these two  women where their husbands were,  and, when they answered that they were away, Pedro Iglesia caught  Inocencia Fernandez around the waist but she resisted such seizure and in the confusion escaped  and took refuge  in a neighboring  house.  The accused who had demanded Santos Pascual's personal cedula, took possession  of it and made him and his wife go with them, under the pretext of conducting them to the town; but on reaching a solitary spot, called Nagtuturican, Juan Valdez  separated the  husband from his wife and Pedro Iglesia, who then threatened  her, Dorotea de la Cruz, with the revolver and, after gagging her, forcibly lay with her. When his evil designs had been accomplished, Pedro Iglesia went to  watch the husband and Juan  Valdez did likewise forcibly  lay with Dorotea de la Cruz.   Juan Valdez took Dorotea  de la Cruz to  the town, but upon approaching the railway station he was caught by the teniente of the barrio. Pedro Iglesia was arrested by the  police in Nagtuturican itself."

The Attorney-General in his brief, makes a careful analysis  of the evidence and  recommends that the sentence of the lower court be affirmed.

The lower court, in  sentencing the defendants took into consideration the aggravating circumstances of astucia and despoblado, with the extenuating circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code.  After a careful  examination of  the evidence and considering the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime and the character  of the defendants,  we are of the opinion  that they  are not entitled to the benefit of the extenuating circumstance of article  11 of the Penal Code.  It is difficult to imagine how men who call themselves men could secure the consent of their consciences  to commit a crime in  the manner in which these defendants committed  the  crime  with  which  they  are charged.  In addition to the  aggravating  circumstances taken into consideration by  the lower  court, we are  of the opinion that the aggravating circumstance of "ignominia," provided for in paragraph 12 of article  10 of the Penal  Code, should be considered as an aggravating  circumstance.   Considering the  three aggravating  circumstances of  astucia, despoblado  and ignominia, and  the absence of  any extenuating circumstances, we are of the opinion that the sentence  of the lower court should  be modified and that each of the defendants should be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seventeen years four months and  one day of reclusion temporal,  to indemnify  Dorotea de la Cruz, jointly and severally,  in the sum of P500, with the accessories of the law,  each to pay one-half the costs. So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Moreland and Trent, JJ.,  concur.