Case # 1:

LAWS:

 MURDER (Article 248 of RPC)- Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder
and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity. xxx (People vs Colorada- accused killed the victim, as attended by treachery and was likewise
proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt)

 TREACHERY (Article 14, p16 of RPC)- Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.

 DYING DECLARATION (Rule 130, Sec 37 of Revised Rules on Evidence)- The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of
an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of an inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding
circumstances of such death.

 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (Rule 133, Sec 4 of Revised Rules on Evidence)- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
There is more than one circumstances; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294- If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

 EVIDENT PREMEDITATION (Article 14, p13 of RPC)- Evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the following
elements are present: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit clung to
his resolve; and (3) a sufficient interval of time between the determination or conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect
upon the consequence of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to its warning (People
vs Zeta)

JURISPRIDENCE:

 TREACHERY and DWELLING

o Not expecting such untoward incident
o Victim was shot inside the house
 POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION

PEOPLE vs SIBBU (G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017)

Facts

Three informations were charged against accused Sibbu, Benny and others for murder and attempted murder. Bryan testified that between 6:30 and
7:00 p.m. of December 6, 2004, he was with Trisha Julian (3 yo daughter), Ofelia Julian (mother), Warlito Julian (father) in the porch of his parents’
house. Bryan saw from a distance of about five meters a person in camouflage uniform with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet over
his head. Bryan recognized the armed man as the accused. Bryan also saw two men in crouching position at a distance of three meters away from the
appellant. Bryan shouted a warning to his family. Accused then fired upon them killing Trisha, Ofelia and Warlito. Accused interposed denial and
alibi. He claimed he never left the house of his in-laws because he was taking care of his sick son. He claimed to have heard the explosions but thought
that those were of firecrackers since it was nearing Christmas. Appellant-accused denied possessing camouflage clothing. RTC found accused guilty
which was affirmed by the CA with modifications on the penalty.

Issue

1) WON the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the alleged eyewitness Bryan; and

2) WON the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and use of disguise were sufficiently established

Ruling

. 1) No. Bryan positively identified appellant-accused as the person who shot at him and killed Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha. There is no reason to
doubt his positive testimony. He was only five meters away from the appellant when the shooting incident happened. In addition, Christmas lights
from the roof of the porch provided illumination, enabling Bryan to identify the appellant.

2. 2) Yes. At the time of the shooting incident, Warlito, Ofelia, Trisha, and Bryan were at the porch of their house totally unaware of the
impending attack. In addition, they were all unarmed thus unable to mount a defense in the event of an attack. On the other hand,
appellant and his cohorts were armed. They also surreptitiously approached the residence of the victims. Appellant, in particular, wore camouflage
uniform to avoid detection. Although Bryan was able to warn his family about the impending attack when he was aware of appellant’s presence, it was too
late for the victims to scamper for safety or to defend themselves. In fine, appellant employed deliberate means to ensure the accomplishment
of his purpose of killing his victims with minimal risk to his safety. There can be no other conclusion than that the appellant's attack was
treacherous.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be taken into account. Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, his victim was
inside. For this circumstance to be considered it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to
commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means
to perpetrate the assault from without x x x.

 DYING DECLARATION
o Agi! Ginpusil ako ni Dandoy!
 POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
o Complainant saw accused roaming at their backyard holding a flashlight; went around their house
o Lived in rural community; generally know each other

CELESTINO MARTURILLAS v. PEOPLE [G.R. NO. 163217 : April 18, 2006]

FACTS: At about 7:30 in the evening, Lito Santos was eating lunch in his house when he heard a gunshot.   Artemio had been shot on the chest.  He
shouted at Santos “Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan.” (Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.)  Lito saw a man running away from the direction of
Artemio’s store, but he was not able to see his face.  Artemio’s wife, Ernita, came running from her house to her husband’s side upon seeing him sprawled
on the ground and bloodied. Ernita shouted several times, “Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana.” (Captain, why did you shoot my husband?)
Barangay Captain Marturillas claimed that he was asleep in his home which was 250 meters away from Artemio’s store at the time of the crime.  During
the trial of the case, Ernita positively identified Marturillas as her husband’s assailant.   This positive identification is corroborated by Santos’ testimony
and expert witness Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer for Davao City, that the gunshot wound in Artemio’s body had been caused by a bullet that
is of the same size as that fired from the accused’s M-14 Rifle. The RTC had found Celestino Marturillas guilty of homicide. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
decision.

ISSUE: Whether the prosecution’s evidence is credible and enough to convict Marturillas of homicide.

RULING: Yes. Ernita positively identified Marturillas as the one “running away” immediately after the sound of a gunshot.   She even described what
he was wearing, the firearm he was carrying, and the direction towards which he was running .  She also clarified that she had heard the
statement, “help me pre, I was shot by the captain.” The identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical
features.  Once a person has gained familiarity with one another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance.   Judicial
notice can also be taken of the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other both by face and name, and can be
expected to know each other’s distinct and particular features and characteristics.  Settled is the rule that on questions of credibility of
witnesses and veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. The testimony of Santos is also valuable
because it validates the statements made by Ernita.  He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim and heard the latter cry out those same
words.

Moreover, the statement of the victim is considered by the Court as both a dying declaration and res gestae. Statements made by a person while a
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as
part of res gestae.  Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants of the victims of, or the spectators to, a crime immediately before, during,
or after its commission.  These statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion, without any
opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement.  All the requisites of res gestae are present in this case:  1.) the principal act, the res
gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2.) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and 3.) the statements concerned the
occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. Both the statements of the victim and Ernita can be considered res gestae.

 POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of the accused by the victim and complainant

o DENIAL and ALIBI will not hold- no one can corroborate his alibi
o Was seen roaming around the victim’s house with flashlight
o Oh! Dandoy shot me!

People vs. Martin Cayago, GR L-47398, Mar 14, 1988

Facts:
At around 12:00 noon, Nancy was alone in the house and taking a nap on one of the bamboo beds (papag) near the window. Macaraeg, Capitle and
Cayago, all armed, suddenly entered the house through the backdoor, the only entrance to the house. Nancy tried scream for help, but Macaraeg stuffed
her mouth with a handkerchief, while threatening her with his hand gun. Macaraeg, Capitle, and Cayago took turns ravishing the victim. The accused,
before leaving, warned Nancy not to discuss the incident with anyone, else they would kill her and her parents as well. Nancy’s mother, Maria,
questioned Nancy about her recent strange behavior but the victim refused to say a word. Days later, Nancy broke her silence and narrated, between
sobs, what had happened to her. Early next morning, Maria informed her husband about the rape of their daughter and reported it to the authorities.
Upon arraignment, appellant Martin Cayago, pleaded not guilty. He thereafter stood trial alone, the two other accused were still at large and have not to
date been brought to trial. The trial court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant Cayago guilty of three (3) distinct offenses of rape. As a final
defense, the accused interposed alibi.

Issues: WON alibi of the accused is appreciated in this case

Ruling: No. Alibi is not only a defense that is inherently weak but also one that cannot prevail against the positive identification of
the accused, like appellant Cayago herein, by the complainant. It is common learning that, for an alibi to succeed, the accused must be shown to have
been at some place other than the situs of the crime and that it was impossible for him to have been at such situs at the time of the commission of the
crime. In the instant case, in addition to the positive identification by the complainant of appellant Cayago, it was clearly not physically impossible
for him to have been at the Mamarils' residence at 12:00 noon on the day of the incident. The wedding, where he claimed to have been at
that particular time, was only about fifty (50) meters away from the scene of the crime. Appellant could have traversed that distance in a few minutes.
Furthermore, appellant sought to establish his alibi by his own testimony and that of his father, and not by testimony of independent
persons who, in the natural course of things, would have been able to support his alibi had it been true.

 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
o Complainant did not see anyone apart from the Accused
o Accused was seen roaming around the house before the gunshot was heard
o Flashlight (property of the accused) was recovered at the scene of the crime
o Finding of accused’s flashlight (more or less 2 meters away from the wall where the gun was fired) puts him in the scene of the crime
o Accused was mad at the victim had motive to kill- suspected victim of stealing 12 sacks of rice.
o 3 days before, he sent his daughter to inspect victim’s house to check if sacks of palay allegedly stolen were hidden there
o Dying declaration of the victim, suggesting he also saw the accused

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LIBERATO PENTECOSTES Y CRONICO G.R. No. 226158, November 08, 2017

Facts: Accused was charge with the crime of murder in an Information which alleges that the accused, with treachery, feloniously assault and attack
VIVIAN VARGAS Y BRIONES, a 7 year old minor by submerging (drowning) her in water thus causing her instantaneous death. Liberato, as sole witness
for the defense, denied knowing Vivian. He confirmed his presence at the drinking spree and claimed that he went home alone at around 3:00 p.m. He
arrived home shortly at around 3:10 p.m. The RTC and CA found Liberato guilty of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery. Insisting on his
innocence, Liberato makes the claim that the CA erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to establish a motive for the killing.

Issue: Whether or not Liberato is guilty for the crime of murder based on circumstantial evidence.

Ruling: Yes. The circumstantial evidence sufficiently proves Liberato's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder.

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not indispensable to criminal prosecutions; a contrary rule would render convictions
virtually impossible given that most crimes, by their very nature, are purposely committed in seclusion and away from eyewitnesses. 44 Thus, the court’s
rules on evidence and jurisprudence allow the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence alone, provided that the following
requisites concur: 1) there is more than one circumstance; 2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt

Here, it proved that (1) Liberato was present at the residence of the victim; (2) he left the residence of Vivian after the drinking spree at about 3:00 in the
afternoon; (3) Angel sent Vivian to return a chair to Auring Habal also after the drinking spree and she failed to return home; (4) Antonio and Jason both
saw Liberato carrying Vivian on his back at around 3:30 or 4:30 in the afternoon at the corn plantation; (5) on the following morning, the lifeless body of
Vivian was found in the corn plantation; (6) Antonio and Jason both testified that Liberato, while carrying Vivian on his back, proceeded to the direction
of the stream and the creek; (7) the cause of death of Vivian is drowning; (8) Liberato fled while being investigated by the police. Thus, the totality of
circumstantial evidence dispels any doubt that Liberato was responsible for the ghastly death of Vivian.

 Special aggravating circumstance- Possible USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM

o Assailant was armed with an undetermined caliber of firearm

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006

FACTS: On January 16, 1998, brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael Ferrer were having a drinking spree and went to Tidbits Videoke Bar. At 10:30
in the evening, Jaime Palaganas, his nephew Ferdinand (Apo) and friend Virgilio Bautista also arrived at the bar. When Jaime Palaganas was singing,
Melton Ferrer sang along with him. Jaime resented this and went near the table of the Ferrer brothers. A fight ensued between the two groups. Jaime
was mauled and Ferdinand was chased outside of the bar. Ferdinand then ran towards the house of the appellant Rujjeric Palaganas, his brother, and
sought for his help. They went to the bar and were stoned by the Ferrer brothers. Rujjeric then grabbed the gun from Ferdinand to force the brothers to
retreat. However, the Ferrer brothers continued throwing stones, so Rujjeric shot them. The RTC declared the petitioner guilty of the crimes of Homicide
and two (2) counts of Frustrated Homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications to the penalty.

ISSUES: Whether or not the use of the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance which should be appreciated by the court at the case at
bar.

RULING: Yes. Provision of Republic Act No. 8294 states: “If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.”

Case # 2:

LAWS:

 Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, provides:

RAPE (Article 266-A): When and How Committed. Rape is committed:

1) By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or
intimidation; xxxx

PENALTIES OF RAPE (Article 266-B) - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
JURISPRIDENCE:

 Disregard of disability (BLINDNESS)

o Accused knew the condition (voice, built, disposition) of the victim because they were long-time neighbors
 RAPE
o Inserted his penis to her vagina and made push and pull motion against her will- succeeded in having carnal knowledge
o Employed force, threat and intimidation- use of bladed weapon and threatened to harm her and children

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALIAS KINO LASCANO (AT LARGE) AND ALFREDO DELABAJAN ALIAS
TABOYBOY, ACCUSED. ALFREDO DELABAJAN, APPELLANT [G.R. No. 192180 : March 21, 2012]

Facts: The RTC found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape. It gave credence to the testimony of AAA that Lascano
and the appellant took turns in raping her. According to the trial court, the victim recognized her assailants through their respective voices. The trial
court held that a public accusation by a blind Filipina whose virtue has been unblemished is worthy of belief. It also disregarded the appellant’s alibi, as
he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. The RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count, and to pay the victim for civil and moral damages, also for each count. The CA affirmed the RTC decision with the
modification that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of qualified rape

Issue: WON accused is guilty of the crime charged

Ruling: Yes. The SC viewed AAA’s testimony to be clear, convincing and credible considering especially the corroboration it received from the medical
certificate and testimony of Dr. Simeon. It bears stressing that identification of an accused by his voice has been accepted, particularly in cases where, as
in this case, the victim has known the perpetrator for a long time. For the blind, voice recognition must be a special sense that has
been developed to a very high degree.  Besides, it is inconceivable that a blind woman would concoct a story of defloration, allow an
examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to
seek justice for the wrong done to her. Thus, the prosecution positively established the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code. First, the appellant and Lascano succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the victim. AAA was steadfast in her assertion that both
the appellant and Lascano had raped her, as a result of which, she felt pain. She also felt that something ‘sticky’ came out of the appellant’s and
Lascano’s private parts. Second, the assailants employed force, threat and intimidation in satisfying their bestial desires. According to AAA,
the appellant and Lascano threatened to kill her if she refused to obey them.

 Did NOT IMMEDIATELY REPORT the incident due to FEAR and use of bladed weapon
o Does not render the rape unworthy of belief
o Victim was afraid of the threat of the accused
o Due to fear, she asked for help to go to her parent’s house
o Only divulge s the incident to her live-in partner one month later
 NO PHYSICAL RESISTANCE
o Not essential element of rape
o Use of a weapon is sufficient to bring her to submission; threatened her thereafter
 INCONCLUSIVE MEDICAL REPORT
o No injury at the time of the examination
o Does not negate rape; not indispensable; merely corroborative

People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia G.R. NO. 189324 March 20,2013

Facts: AAA was renting a room at a boarding house in Pasay City which was owned by Penilla's grandmother. Around midnight, she was sleeping alone in
her room and was suddenly awakened by Penilla's angry voice berating her for the loud volume of her television which was disturbing his sleep. AAA rose
and was surprised to see Penilla by her bedside, naked and holding a kitchen knife. When AAA asked how Penilla entered the room, the latter did not
answer and switched off the light. AAA tried to put distance between her and Penilla, who then pushed her towards the bed. Penilla poked the knife at the
right side of her body. Paralyzed with fear and physically overpowered by Penilla, AAA remained silent and did not shout for help while Penilla forced
himself on AAA, his penis penetrating into AAA's vagina. Thereafter, he left AAA's room. After four (4) days, AAA filed a complaint for Rape against
Penilla. Accused vehemently denied that he raped AAA, insisting that their sexual encounter was consensual and was, in fact, even initiated by AAA. After
trial, the RTC convicted Penilla of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's finding of
guilt.

Issue: WON Penilla indeed raped AAA.

Ruling: Yes. By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony
because of the fact that, usually, only the participants can directly testify as to its occurrence. 12 Thus, SC reverts to the testimony of the witnesses. AAA
remained steadfast and unyielding, even on cross-examination and questioning by the trial court, that an already naked Penilla suddenly appeared
in her room on the pretext that the volume of her television set was bothering his sleep, and in a quick and horrifying turn of events, Penilla pushed her
on to her bed, poked a knife by her right side, and had carnal knowledge of her.

Penilla asseverates that the prosecution's story was silent on any physical struggle suggestive of rape. Physical resistance is not the sole test to
determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential element of rape. Rape victims
react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. 19 The use of a weapon, by itself, is
strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife, much more poking it at her, as in this case, is sufficient to
bring her into submission.20 Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.
For Penilla, this delay belies her cry of rape. The court disagrees. Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not
necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement
to the cruelty of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.

Neither does an inconclusive medical report negate the finding that Penilla raped AAA. A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable
in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a doctor's
certificate is merely corroborative in character and not an indispensable requirement in proving the commission of rape.

 TREACHERY AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

o Took advantage of victim’s blindness
 MURDER (case #1)
1. Victim Jose died
2. Killing is not infanticide or parricide- neighbors
3. Dandoy killed Jose- based on positive identification, dying declaration and circumstantial evidence (proven beyond reasonable doubt)
4. Killing qualified by treachery

G.R. No. 215715, August 31, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDCEL COLORADA

Facts: Around 3:30 in the afternoon, Apolinario saw the accused enter the house where the victim was and challenged her to a fight. Because accused did
not get a response, 9 he went up to the house's porch and hacked the victim on the neck with the use of a long bolo. The victim immediately fell down.
Terrified, Apolinario went home immediately after the incident. 11 Ernesto, the victim's son, saw his already wounded mother being dragged by the
accused by the armpit. However, Ernesto was also hacked by him. He tried to defend himself from accused's long bolo but still sustained injuries. He had
to run away and hide. Leonilo, also the victim's son, entered his house and saw his mother lying on her stomach. According to Leonilo, his mother
revealed to him that it was the accused who inflicted the wound. His mother was brought to a hospital in Tacloban but eventually died. The RTC
rendered a Decision finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification.

Issue: WON the crime is attended by aggravating circumstance of treachery which qualifies the killing to murder.

Ruling: Yes. The prosecution must establish the following to prove the crime of murder: (1) that the victim was killed; (2) that the killing is not
infanticide or parricide; (3) that the accused killed the victim; and (4) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in
Article 248 of the RPC. All the elements are present in this case. That the accused-appellant killed the victim, as attended by treachery and
taking advantage of superior strength, was likewise proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or herself. 35 Given the blindness and
old age of the victim, it was highly improbable for her to defend herself or escape from her attacker.

 NIGHTTIME, DWELLING, UNLAWFUL ENTRY

o Accused took advantage of the dead of night to commit the crime (midnight)
o Accused was an intruder and committed the crime in the victim’s home
o Victim heard an iron roof falling- presumes that accused went inside through a window not intended for entrance because entering
through the door would not produce the sound of iron roof falling.

G.R. No. 30715 July 27, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO CORCINO

Facts: At about midnight, while everybody was asleep, Maria Tejano, awoke feeling the weight of a man upon her in carnal communication with her.
Believing he was her husband, she called him by his name. He answered in a low voice, from which she knew that the man on top of her was not her
husband, and she pushed him away. The satyr then held her down by her forehead. As it was dark, the light having gone out, she woke up her brother-in-
law, Alfredo Custodio, and told him to light the lamp because there was an outsider in the room. When the lamp was lighted, the intruder, who turned
out to be the defendant, attempted to jump out through the window, with his drawers down to his knees, but the Maria caught hold of the tail of his shirt,
and so prevented him from jumping. Upon being questioned by the officer why he was in that house, the defendant answered: "Pardon me. I have done
wrong… I approached the offended party stealthily to lie with her." The barrio lieutenant then reduced to writing the defendant’s declaration, which was
an admission of his guilt, and the said defendant voluntarily signed it in the presence of five witnesses. The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of
rape in accordance with the information, and considering the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, unlawful entry, and dwelling-
place, imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion temporal, with accessories of law, and costs.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, attended by aggravating circumstances of nighttime, unlawful entry, and dwelling.

Ruling: Yes. Considering the testimony of the offended party and of the witnesses for the prosecution, together with all the circumstances of the case, we
are of the opinion, and so hold, that the defendant, taking advantage of the offended party’s sleep, succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of her. 

The facts alleged in the information as proved at the trial constitute the crime of rape defined and penalized in article 438 of the Penal Code, the penalty
fixed by law being reclusion temporal in its full extent. In the commission of the crime the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
dwelling-place and unlawful entry must be taken into consideration, because the defendant took advantage of the darkness of the night, and
committed the crime in the offended party’s home, passing through a window not intended for entrance; and there being no extenuating
circumstance to offset them, said penalty must be imposed in its maximum degree. Wherefore, the judgment appealed from being in conformity with the
proof and the law, the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with costs against the appellant.