Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tresspass To Dwelling
Tresspass To Dwelling
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.
(are these justifying or exempting?)
Question:
Is 3rd paragraph justifying or exempting circumstances?
Answer:
exempting! Reason: a crime has been committed when a person
entered the premise of another but, for such reasons, then, he is not
criminally liable. Having benefited, he may be held civilly liable.
“Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Question:
What exempts a person from trespassing?
Answer:
1. To prevent some serious harm to himself;
2. For purpose of rendering some service of humanity or justice;
3. He enters cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the
same are open.
Question:
What if in the process of entering the premise to prevent serious harm
to myself, I destroyed the door of the house. Am I also exempt from
any civil liability?
Answer:
No! you pay for the damages!
Article 282. Grave threats. - Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though
not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two
degrees shall be imposed.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the
threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Question:
Pedro was forced to give a copy of his assignment to Juan because Juan
threatened him: “kung hindi mo ako pakokopyahin ng assignment,
papatayin kita!” what penalty should be imposed?
Answer:
Prision Mayor! Reason: one degree lower for the crime of homicide
with penalty of reclusion temporal!
“If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty
lower by two degrees shall be imposed.”
Question:
Juan uttered to Pedro after heated argument, “papatayin kita!
papatayin kita!”. Is this grave threat?
Answer:
Yes! It is still a threat! But the penalty is much lower than that with
demand for money or with condition.
“2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.”
Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a wrong not
constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1
of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Question:
During recitation, Prof. Kulit threatened you, “if you will not be able to
answer my question, I will flunk you!” was there a crime committed?
Answer:
None! Reason: Prof. Kulit is not committing any “wrong”! To flunk a
student is not a wrong being contemplated under Article 283.
Basis:
Basis:
Basis:
“Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a
wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner
expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article,
shall be punished by arresto mayor.”
Question:
Going back to the earlier case, Prof. Kulit argued that I never received
the new iphone watch! So, I must be penalized with a lesser penalty
of arresto menor instead of arresto mayor under Article 283 because
“I did not attain my purpose (see par1 of Art 282)”. Is the argument
correct?
Answer:
No! see Batolan vs Judge Leorente G.R. No. L-17994 August 31, 1963
G.R. No. L-17994 August 31, 1963
FEDERICO BATOLANON and TEODORO V. NANO, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
HON. ROMAN A. LEORENTE, Justice of the Peace of Tagum, Davao, respondent-appellee.
Note: self-explanatory
Article 285. Other light threats. - The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next
preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with
some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that
he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the
circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article
282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
“Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding
article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless
it be in lawful self-defense.”
Note: this contemplates the idea that the weapon was drawn
BUT without any utterance or verbal threat.
“2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat
shall not have been made subject to a condition.”
Note: in one case, the SC ruled that drawing a gun coupled by
utterance is grave threat under Article 282 and not mere “other light
threats” under article 285!
G.R. No. 171511 March 4, 2009
RONNIE CALUAG, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 47358 charged Caluag with grave
threats committed as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of March 2000, in the City of Las
Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, moved by personal resentment which he
entertained against one JULIA LAVIAL DENIDO, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten said JULIA LAVIAL DENIDO
with the infliction on her person of a harm amounting to a crime, by then
and there poking his gun at her forehead and uttering the following words
in tagalog, to wit:
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Supreme Court ruled:
Note: This contemplates the idea that the threat was made ORALLY but
not constituting a crime and without being qualified to fall under Article
282 of the RPC.
Note: in one case, the SC ruled that “pakakagat sa aso” done in the
heat of anger constitute “other light threats” under article 285!
[ G.R. No. 226991, December 10, 2018 ]
ERLINDA ESCOLANO Y IGNACIO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Note: Again, this contemplates the idea that the threat was made ORALLY
but not constituting a crime and without being qualified to fall under
Article 282 of the RPC.
Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without
authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to
perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next
higher in degree shall be imposed.
Article 287. Light coercions. - Any person who, by means of violence, shall
seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same
to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no
case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or
a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
Question:
Differentiate Grave Coercion VS light Coercion?
Answer:
Grave coercion VS light coercion
Prevent to do not prohibited seize things belonging
by law or compel him to do to debtor
Something against his
Will, right or wrong
Question:
What the similarity of grave coercion VS light coercion?
Answer:
Grave Coercion VS light coercion
Pedro sent a letter to Juan, ordering Juan to stop parking his car in
front of his house. Is this grave coercion?
Answer:
No! reason: there was no violence employed by Pedro. He merely sent
a letter to Juan.
Basis:
“The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall,
by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law…”
Question:
What crime is committed:
1. If I intentionally “spit” on you for no reason?____________
2. If I “spit” on you because we had a heated
argument?_____________
3. If I “spit” on you because you refuse to let me copy your
assignment?_____________
Answer:
1. Unjust vexation (art.287)
2. Slander by deed (art.359)
3. Unjust vexation (art.287)
Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of
merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) - The
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any
association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or
indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee
employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or
compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay
the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of
tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the laborer
or employee.
Question:
If the workers voluntarily and insisted that their wages should be paid
in form of “rice”, should the employer be held criminally liable if he
abide by the demand of his workers?
Answer:
Yes! Reason: not under 1st paragraph of article 288 but under 2nd
paragraph of Article 288.
Note: even if voluntary, but under the 2nd paragraph, the employer are
forbidden to do it.
“The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the
wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects
other than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.”
Presidential Decree No. 442, AS AMENDED May 1, 1974
A DECREE INSTITUTING A LABOR CODE THEREBY REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING LABOR AND SOCIAL LAWS TO AFFORD
PROTECTION TO LABOR, PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND INSURE INDUSTRIAL PEACE
BASED ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
Chapter III
PAYMENT OF WAGES
Basis:
“shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or
force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their
industry or work”
G.R. No. 175002 February 18, 2013
PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
ANECITO MOLON, AUGUSTO TECSON, et.al., Respondents