Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

011 Phil 75:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4133. August 10, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO DULFO, Defendant-Appellant.

W. A. Kincaid for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FORCIBLE ENTRY; BURDEN OF PROOF; PRESUMPTION. — To constitute the crime of forcible entry of a dwelling, it is essential that the entry be made against the will of the occupant of the house and, in order to justify a conviction, this fact must be established by the prosecution. It is not, however, always necessary that an express prohibition be proven; under certain circumstances it will be presumed, as where a person enters with force or by intimidation. (U. S. v. Arceo, 3 Phil. Rep., 381; U. S. v. Clauck, 6 Phil. Rep., 486.)

2. ID.; INVITATION TO ENTER. — It will not be presumed that an entry upon invitation by a member of the household was against the will of the householder merely because it afterwards develops that the entry was made without his immediate consent, or that he was absent and had no opportunity to give or withhold such consent. In general, all members of a household must be presumed to have authority to extend an invitation to enter:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

3. ID.; INVITATION BY A MINOR. — An invitation to enter a dwelling, extended by a young girl at least 12 years of age, an inmate thereof, held sufficient to justify the claim that the entry was not made against the will of the occupant, in the absence of an express prohibition on his part. Whether an inmate might be of such tender years that an invitation by such a person would not bring the case within the rule, not decided.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


Pedro Dulfo, the appellant in this case, was convicted of the crime of allanamiento de morada (entering the house of another, against the will of the occupant) and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment in the provincial jail.

Dulfo admitted that he had entered the house of Dagohoy, the complaining witness, between the hours of 12 and 2 on the night of the 14th day of February, 1907, and that on that occasion the owner of the house was absent, having left it in charge of his daughters Maximina and Filomena; but he insisted that he had gone to the house at the invitation of the younger daughter Filomena, who opened the door and admitted him. Filomena absolutely denied having invited the accused to the house and she also denied having admitted him when he came there. Upon this point the evidence is conflicting, but we think that giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, we must hold that the statement of the accused is substantially true, and acquit him of the offense with which he is charged.

The trial judge also appears to have been of opinion that the denials of the girl Filomena could not be accepted as true, beyond a reasonable doubt, for he expressly declined to make any finding on this point and convicted the accused on the ground that the girl being between 12 and 13 years of age, her invitation, and the opening of the door by her, did not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility for entering the house without the consent of the owner.

This court, however, by a majority opinion in the case of the United States v. Agas (4 Phil. Rep., 129), acquitted the accused of the crime of allanamiento de morada, where it appeared from the evidence that the defendant entered the house at the request of one of the occupants thereof, and this doctrine is in accord with the doctrine laid down by the supreme court of Spain, decisions of June 28 and September 28, 1876.

It is an essential element of the offense under consideration, as defined and penalized in the Penal Code, that the entry must have been made without the consent or, more accurately speaking, against the will of the occupant of the dwelling house, and it is therefore the duty of the prosecution to affirmatively establish this fact, before a conviction can be had upon a complaint charging its commission. We held in the case of the United States vs Arceo (3 Phil. Rep., 381), that to establish this fact it is not necessary that there be proof of an express prohibition to enter, and, in the case of the United States v. Clauck (6 Phil. Rep., 486), that the fact that the entry was without the consent of the occupant may be presumed from circumstances, as where one enters violently with force or intimidation. But the doctrine laid down in these cases in no wise relieves the prosecution of the burden of affirmatively establishing that entry was made against the prohibition of the occupant, either express or implied.

The supreme court of Spain in its sentecia. of the 28th of September, 1876, held that the preposition contra. (against) which i6 used in the article of the Penal Code defining the crime of allanamiento de morada, signifies negativa, oposicion manifesta a que se haga alguna cosa. It would seem, therefore, that where the owner of a house is not the sole occupant, it would be intolerable to hold that one is guilty of this offense who is invited to enter by one of the members of the household, unless it clearly appeared that such member of the household was forbidden to extend such invitation and that the person entering was aware of that fact. All the members of a household must be presumed to have authority to extend an invitation to enter, for to hold otherwise would be contrary to an almost universal custom and would impose an unreasonable burden on the relations of outsiders with the various members of a household other than the legal head of the house. It will not, therefore, be presumed that an entry at the invitation of a member of the household was "against" (contra) the wish of the householder, merely because it afterwards develops that such entry was in fact without his consent, or, as in the case at bar, that he was absent and had no opportunity to give or to withhold his consent. A similar doctrine was laid down by the supreme court of Spain in a case wherein the facts were almost precisely similar to the case at bar. (Judgment of June 28, 1876.)

It has been suggested that this doctrine should not be applied in the case at bar because the girl who admitted the accused appears to have been not quite 13 years of age. But while we do not undertake at this time to lay down any fixed rule whereby it can be determined that a member of a household is of such tender years that the foregoing doctrine can not be applied, we think we must hold that the girl Filomena (who was at least 12 years of age, and as appears from the evidence old enough to have carried on amorous relations with the accused prior to the night in question, and who together with her 18-year old sister appears to have been left in charge of the house during the absence of her father), was old enough to justify the inference that when the accused entered the house at her invitation, such entry was not against the will of the occupant of the house, it appearing that her father was absent, and there being no proof of an express prohibition on his part.

The judgment and sentence of the trial court is reversed with the costs of both instances de oficio, and the accused is acquitted of the offense with which he is charged; if in detention, he will be set at liberty forthwith, or, if at liberty on bail, his sureties are hereby discharged. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Willard, JJ., concur.

Mapa and Tracey, JJ., dissent.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183