Trespass to Dwelling

discussed by: Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit

Press ENTER to start…
Article 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. (no violence)

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. (with violence/intimidation)

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.

Note: correlate this to the “bill of rights” in our Constitution.

“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!

Note: (kaya nga exempting circumstance lang eh!)

Note: do you remember your crimlaw 1? In justifying- no crime is
committed VERSUS in exempting- a crime has been committed but you
are not criminally liable.
Question:
What if you entered a closed café or inn, will you be held criminally
liable for tresspass to dwelling?
Answer:
Yes! The law requires that the café or inn should be open. If you want
to enter the closed café or inn, get a search warrant OR apply #1 or
#2 but NOT #3 exemption in article 280.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass. - The penalty of arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of
another, while either of them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to
enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission
of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Note: apply article 281 ONLY to “uninhabited” closed premises or
fenced estate.
Question:
What if I entered an empty lot with a placard planted therein which
states: “This lot it not for sale! NO Tresspassing!” and the same is
NOT fenced, can I be charged of other forms of trespass?
Answer:
No! reason: the lot must be fenced!
Question:
Will your answer be the same if the empty lot is surrounded by barb
wire even without a placard planted therein?
Answer:
Yes! This time I can be held criminally liable for other forms of
tresspass. Reason: there is a fence!
But….the law requires that there must be manifest intention on the
part of the owner to exclude me from entering the premise? Answer:
The barb-wire fence is already substantial compliance.
Threat and Coercion

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.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be

imposed in its maximum period.

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!

Basis for such a penalty:

“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…”
Question:
Despite the threat, Pedro did not allow Juan to copy his assignment.
Was there a crime committed?
Answer:
Yes! Juan is still criminally liable for grave threat but the penalty is
two(2) degrees lower!

Basis for such penalty:

“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.

Basis for the penalty:

“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:

“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 give me a
new Iphone watch, I will flunk you!” was there a crime committed?
Answer:
Yes! This time, Prof. Kulit is committing a “wrong” by demanding an
iphone watch!

Basis:

“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:
Will your answer be the same if Prof. Kulit, for no reason just uttered
to you inside the elevator “I will flunk you!”?
Answer:
No! no crime is committed! Reason: to constitute as light threat, the
threat must still be subject to the following:
1. Demanding money;
2. Imposing any other condition

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.

The appellants argue that as the purpose of extorting money

from the offended party was not attained by them, the penalty to be
imposed should be two degrees lower than arresto mayor, which
is arresto menor, pursuant to the two above-quoted articles which
must be read together; and as the complaint was filed after two
months from the date of the alleged commission of the crime, the
prosecution of the crime is barred by the statute of limitations and
the Justice of the Peace has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the
case. The argument is without merit. The correlation between
articles 283 and 282, subdivision 1, of the Revised Penal Code is
confined only to the manner of committing the threat, such as
demanding money or imposing any other condition, without
changing or altering the penalties each imposes.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior. - In all cases falling within the two
next preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be
required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he
shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

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.

Otherwise, the threat shall fall under paragraph 2

of Article 282. why? Because, pointing a gun is a crime.

“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:

"Saan ka pupunta gusto mo ito?"

thereby causing said complainant to be threatened.

CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Supreme Court ruled:

“Article 285, par. 1 (other light threats) is inapplicable although it

specifically states, "shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
weapon in a quarrel", since it presupposes that the threat to commit a
wrong will not constitute a crime. That the threat to commit a wrong will
constitute or not constitute a crime is the distinguishing factor between
grave threats on one hand, and light and other light threats on the other.”
 “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.”

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.

Petitioner committed the crime of other light threats.

Nevertheless, though the prosecution failed to prove the intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth
of private complainants, petitioner still uttered insults and invectives at them. Specifically, petitioner's
statement "Putang ina ninyo, gago kayo, wala kayong pinagaralan, wala kayong utak, subukan ninyong bumaba
dito, pakakawalan ko ang aso ko, pakakagat ko kayo sa aso ko," were directed against private complainants. In
this regard, AAA testified that this particular utterance from petitioner was scary.[36] DDD also corroborated said
claim that private complainants were too traumatized even to go downstairs because of their fear that
petitioner might release her dog to chase and bite them.[37]
However, it must also be emphasized that, as discussed, petitioner's utterances were made in the heat of her
anger because private complainants had thrown ketchup sachets at her. Petitioner merely intended that private
complainants stop their rude behavior. Thus, petitioner committed the crime of Other Light Threats under
Article 285(2) of the RPC, to wit:
Art. 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. (Emphasis
supplied)
xxxx
 “Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.”

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.

Example: huwag kang lalapit, duduraan kita!

Grave coercion VS Light Coercion

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

Both are committed by means of violence

Question:

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

Article 102. Forms of payment. No employer shall pay the

wages of an employee by means of promissory notes,
vouchers, coupons, tokens, tickets, chits, or any object other
than legal tender, even when expressly requested by the
employee.

Payment of wages by check or money order shall be allowed

when such manner of payment is customary on the date of
effectivity of this Code, or is necessary because of special
circumstances as specified in appropriate regulations to be
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or as
stipulated in a collective bargaining agreement.
Source: Labor Code of the Philippines
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of
capital or labor through violence or threats. - The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing
coalitions or capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of
employees, 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, if the act shall not constitute a
more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Question:
If you retrench an employee who happened to be the President of the
Labor Union in good faith, will that constitute violation of Article
289?
Answer:
No! reason: it only becomes a crime if the employer uses “violence or
threat”!

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

Mindful of their nature, the Court finds it difficult to

attribute any act of union busting or ULP on the part of Pepsi
considering that it retrenched its employees in good faith. As earlier
discussed, Pepsi tried to sit-down with its employees to arrive at
mutually beneficial criteria which would have been adopted for their
intended retrenchment. In the same vein, Pepsi’s cooperation during
the NCMB-supervised conciliation conferences can also be gleaned
from the records. Furthermore, the fact that Pepsi’s rightsizing
program was implemented on a company-wide basis dilutes
respondents’ claim that Pepsi’s retrenchment scheme was calculated
to stymie its union activities, much less diminish its constituency.
Therefore, absent any perceived threat to LEPCEU-ALU’s existence or
a violation of respondents’ right to self-organization – as
demonstrated by the foregoing actuations –Pepsi cannot be said to
have committed union busting or ULP in this case.
Standby for the next slide presentation…