The defendants were convicted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Oriental Negros of the crime of allanamiento de morada and  condemned each  one to two years four months and one day of prision correccional, to a fine of 325 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-third of the costs of the trial. They appealed.  During the pendency of the case on appeal the defendant Lucio Hermenegildo withdrew his appeal.

It appears that  on the 3d day of May, 1908, Ling Aling, Awi  Cuan, and Co-boy Cuan were conducting  a store in Bais, Oriental Negros.  The building used as a store was occupied by them  also as living quarters. About 7 o'clock of the morning of that day the defendant Santiago Villanueva went to the store and sought to buy a pair of shoes on credit.  He  was refused.  Nevertheless  he wrote a promissory note and leaving it on a table in the store  went out.   At about 10  of the same morning he returned to the store and asked credit for a shirt and a  pair of pantaloons. On being  again refused  credit he asked for  a piece of paper, saying that  he would send to  his house for the money.  He then left.  At about 1 of the same day he went again  to  the  store,  this time, however,  accompanied by the other two defendants.  Having entered  he paid the proprietors  for the  shirt  and pantaloons, whereupon the defendant Gamilla  seized Aling by the hand and struck at him with  his fist, failing, however,  to reach him.  At this the defendant Hermenegildo struck Co-boy with a stick and the defendant Villanueva, seizing a piece of iron, struck Awi Cuan in the temple with such force that he fell to the floor.  The defendants then went out, and after their departure, the Chinamen  closed  the  store and locked the doors.  Soon the defendants  returned.  They forced the door  open, breaking  the lock  and fastenings, and again entered the store.   The defendant Gamilla assaulted Aling with a stick, wounding him in the face, breaking his nose and causing injuries which required more than thirty days for their cure.

These facts are fully established and proved by the testimony  of the Chinamen assaulted and by that of Vivencio Baldado,  Eusebio  Buso, Jose  Maria  Montenegro,  Bais Emilio Tevez, and Eladio de Guia.

Testimony tending to  contradict that of the prosecution as to the forcible entry was given by the defendants.  The court below,  however, found in favor of the  Government. A careful examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion  that  his finding was correct.  Moreover,  in  any view that may be taken  of it, we meet the decision of this court in the case of United States vs. Arceo (3 Phil. Rep., 381), in which the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Johnson, says, at page 383,  interpreting  article  491  of  the Penal Code:

"We are not of the opinion that the statute relates simply to the method by which  one may pass  the threshold of the residence  of  another without  his consent.  We think  it relates also to the conduct, immediately after entrance, of him  who enters the house of another without his consent. He who being armed  with deadly weapons enters the residence of another in  the nighttime,  without consent,  and immediately commits acts of violence  and intimidation,  is guilty of entering the house of another with  violence and intimidation and is  punishable under subsection 2 of article 491 of the Penal Code.   (See Viada, vol. 3, p.  303; Gazette of Spain of the 28th of March, 1883; Viada, vol. 6, p. 363; Gazette of Spain of the 19th of May, 1892, p. 165.)"

The court, however, erred in the imposition of the penalty.  The penalty  provided for by law is that of prision correccional in its medium and maximum degree, from two years four months and one day to six years, with the accessories provided by law, and  a fine of from 325 to 3,250 pesetas,  with subsidiary imprisonment in  case  of insolvency.  There being present in the commission of the crime neither aggravating  nor  extenuating circumstances,  the penalty imposed should  have been in the medium  degree.

The judgment of the court  below is hereby modified  and the defendants  are sentenced each one to three years six months and twenty-one days of prision correctional, to the accessories provided by  law, to a fine of 1,000 pesetas, to subsidiary imprisonment as provided by  law, and  to  pay one-third of the costs.  Thus modified,  the judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs against the  appellants, equally.   So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres, Maya, Johnson, and Carson,  JJ., concur.