On
Trespass to Dwelling

Art.280

Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private person;
2. That he enters the dwelling of another; and
3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will.

Qualifying circumstance: If the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation.

There must be an opposition on the part of the owner of the house to the entry of the accused.

Dwelling: any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort, depends upon use; maybe a room; implied prohibition depending on circumstances

DWELLING: This is the place that a person inhabits. It includes the dependencies which have interior communication with the house. It is not necessary that it be the permanent dwelling of the person; hence, a person’s room in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. It also includes a room where one resides as a boarder.

If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown, trespass is committed.

If the purpose is shown, it may be absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upon things, the trespass yielding to the more serious crime.

Implied prohibition is present considering the following situation. Ex. Felony was committed late at night and everyone’s asleep or entrance was made through the window.

Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender.

When there is no overt act of the crime intended to be committed (Ex. theft), the crime is trespass to dwelling.

If the purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling he was found by the occupants, one of whom was injured by him, the crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and frustrated homicide,
physical injuries, or if there was no injury, unjust vexation.

If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry, that is presumed to be against the will of the occupant (example, entry through a window). It is not necessary that there be a breaking.

Against the will: This means that the entrance is, either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the prohibition is presumed. Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass. The prohibition to enter may be made at any time and not necessarily at the time of the entrance.

To prove that an entry is against the will of the occupant, it is not necessary that the entry should be preceded by an express prohibition, provided that the opposition of the occupant is clearly established by the circumstances under which the entry is made, such as the existence of enmity or strained relations between the accused and the occupant.

Offender is public officer: Crime is violation of domicile.

No overt act of the crime intended to be committed: Crime is trespass to dwelling.

Trespass may be committed even by the owner of the dwelling against the actual occupant thereof.

NOT APPLICABLE TO:
- entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself, the occupants or a third person;
- purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice; and
- place is a café, tavern, etc. while it is open.

Medina case: 
When the accused entered the dwelling through the window, he had no intent to kill any person inside. His intention to kill came to his mind when he was being arrested by the occupants thereof. Hence, the crime of trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct offense from frustrated homicide.

Examples of trespass by means of violence:
1. Pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants after entering.
2. Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the door latch of a closed room was fastened. The cutting of the fastenings of the door was an act of violence.
3. Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the house immediately after entrance

Examples of trespass by means of intimidation:
1. Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting to force their way into a house.
2. The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of the house upon gaining an entrance.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)

Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or other establishments without being
liable for trespass to dwelling? 

Suggested Answer:

Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of: 
a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a third person; and 
b) Rendering service to humanity or justice; Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same are open will likewise not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).

Bar Exam Question (1994)

Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)

At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay. Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?

Suggested Answer:

Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto. The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto...