SUBJECT:

Crim 2

TOPIC:
Date Made:
Digest Maker:
Art 128 Violation of 28/01/16
Francis Kyle Subido
Domicile
CASE NAME: US v Vallejo
PONENTE: Tracey, J.
Case Date: Sept 3, 1908
Case Summary:
Brief, recit-ready summary of the case. Keep it to 10 sentences, max.
Rule of Law:
Art. 128. Violation of domicile. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search
papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or
having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises,
shall refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Detailed Facts:
The policeman Sabio narrated the facts of the case. On 17 May, 1907, there was a
disturbance complaint by Januario Duran so the police authorities (officer in charge) sent
2 municipal policemen, Tranquilino Saravillo and Dalmacio Sabio to the place of
disturbance, the house of Salvador Vallejo. On the way, they heard the shouts of Vallejo,
running around the house and making a disturbance, Sabio says there were many people
around the house watching. They got to the top of the stairs, knocked on the door and
asked for Vallejo who asked Who Is it? to which they replied Municipal police to which
Vallejo asked if they had a warrant to come in and they admitted to having none.
Immediately after, he struck Saravillo and tried to hit Sabio as well but he dodged and
caught his right hand and hit him with his club, then Blas Ausina came out, threw his
arms around Vallejo and dragged him back inside and shut the door. Both policemen
gave roughly the same account, and both in uniform. These fact are not contested as
Vallejo and Ausina were both sentenced for an attempt against agent of authority with
Vallejo given the benefit of drunkenness. The case is about whether the 2 policemen
violated the inviolability of domicile
Issue:
(S) W/N the inviolability of a dwelling/domicile has been violated? - NO
Holding:
While it was inside his dwelling, and this is inviolable, a man cannot use that as a citadel
for aggression against his neighbors, nor to create disorder as to affect the peace. In this
case, it is obvious it caused public disturbance
Municipal policemen are not really referred to as policemen in the strict sense as they
do not really have the power of the State, while the municipality has the power to
regulate, maintain and establish a police power which the policemen here are part of.
There is no ordinance on arrest w/o a warrant so need to use common law. In the
absence of statutes, and under the common law of England and America, a duly
appointed officer has the powers, which belong to a peace officer, to arrest without
warrant for offenses committed in his presence
BLOCK D 2019 1

Ruling:
-Vallejo sentenced to prision mayor 2 years, 4 months and one day + fine of P100
-Ausina sentenced to prision correccional 1 year, 8 months and 21 days + fine of P100
-each of the defendants pay one-half of the costs

BLOCK D 2019 2