Case Summary (G.R. No. 17332)
Incident and Charges
Olimpio de Peralta entered the room occupied by Toledo on October 16, 1919, purportedly to retrieve a desk glass believed to be the union's property. The entry was without explicit permission from the occupant. Peralta was charged and convicted of trespass to dwelling—a criminal offense under Article 491 of the Philippine Penal Code. The trial court sentenced him to two months and one day of arresto mayor, a fine of 400 pesos, and costs.
Witness Testimonies
Prosecution witnesses, Lucia Matias and Daniel Alvarado, described Peralta entering the closed room by pushing or kicking the door without prior consent. Lucia questioned Peralta about his unauthorized entry, to which Peralta responded he needed something inside. Defense witnesses, Bernardo Bildad and Bonifacio Viloria, also confirmed Peralta’s entry between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m. seeking the desk glass, accompanied by Lucia Matias.
Legal Issue
The central question was whether Peralta’s entry constituted trespass to dwelling under Article 491 of the Penal Code, which requires that the offender enters the dwelling against the occupant's express or implied prohibition. The prosecution argued unauthorized entry was sufficient for the offense, while the defense claimed lack of explicit opposition negated criminal liability.
Court’s Reasoning on Trespass to Dwelling
The Court clarified that the crime of trespass to dwelling requires the entrance to be against the occupant's will or express prohibition. Mere lack of permission does not equate to prohibited entry. Citing both Spanish jurisprudence and Philippine law, the Court reiterated that entering a dwelling without the occupant’s consent does not automatically constitute trespass if there is no opposition or expressed denial of entry.
The Court further observed surrounding circumstances:
- The room was part of a building rented by the union.
- Peralta and other union members were presumed familiar with accessing the room.
- The entrance was during daylight (between 10:30 and 11:00 a.m.).
- The door was neither barricaded nor locked, implying no manifest intent to exclude entry.
Application of Law and Outcome
Based on these facts and legal principles, the Court ruled that Peralta’s entry was
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 17332)
Facts of the Case
- In October 1919, Cecilio Toledo held the position of president of the "Philippine Marine Union" and occupied a room (No. 507, Jaboneros Street) rented by the association as his dwelling.
- Toledo was relieved of his presidency around mid-October, succeeded by Olimpio de Peralta.
- On the morning of October 16, 1919, Peralta entered the room formerly occupied by Toledo allegedly to find a desk glass believed to belong to the union.
- An information for trespass to dwelling was filed against Peralta alleging he entered Toledo’s room against the will of the occupant.
- In the trial court, Peralta was convicted, sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor, fined 400 pesetas, and ordered to pay costs.
Witness Testimonies
- Prosecution Witness Lucia Matias testified that:
- She was inside the closed room when Peralta pushed open the door.
- Upon seeing him inside, she asked why he entered without permission.
- Peralta replied he needed something in the room.
- She told him not to take the desk glass since Toledo was absent.
- Prosecution Witness Daniel Alvarado testified that:
- He was inside cleaning a phonograph when Peralta struck the door forcefully.
- He heard a strong blow which he believed was a kick against the door by Peralta.
- Defense Witnesses Bernardo Bildad and Bonifacio Viloria testified that:
- Peralta entered the room between 10:30 and 11:00 AM accompanied by Lucia Matias.
- He was looking for the desk glass in question.
Issue
- Whether the accused Olimpio de Peralta was guilty of trespass to dwelling for entering the room of Cec