ART.
280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Section Two. — Trespass to dwelling
Art. 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.
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.chanrobles
virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual
law library
Elements of trespass to dwelling.
1. That the offender is a private person.
2. That he enters the dwelling of another.
3. That such entrance is against the latter's will.
Trespass by means of violence:
1. Pushing the door violently and maltreating the
occupants after entering. (U.S. vs. Paray, 17 Phil. 378)
2. Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the door
latch of a closed room was fastened.
The cutting of the fastenings of the door was an act
of violence. (U.S. vs. Lindio, 10 Phil. 192)
3. Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the
house immediately after entrance. (U.S. vs. Arceo, et
al., 3 Phil. 381)
Trespass by means of intimidation:
1. Firing a revolver in the air by persons
attempting to force their way into a house. (U.S. vs.
Ostrea, 2 Phil. 93)
2. The nourishing of a bolo against inmates of the
house upon gaining entrance. (U.S. vs. Lindio, 10
Phil. 192)
Qualifying Circumstance: If committed by means
of violence/intimidation.
Rule: Whoever enters the dwelling of another at
late hour of the night after the inmates have retired
and closed their doors does so against their will.
Prohibition in this case is presumed.
Cases to which the provision of this article is
NOT applicable:
1. If the entrance to another’s dwelling is made for
the purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third
person.
2. If the purpose is to render some service to
humanity or justice.
3. If the place where entrance is made is a café,
tavern, inn and other public house, while the same
are open.
Art. 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 or 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.chanrobles virtual
law library
Elements:
1. That the offender enters the closed premises
or the estate of another.
2. That the entrance is made while either of
them is uninhabited.
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest.
4. That the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

EN BANC with a key, and the circumstance that the room in

PEOPLE vs. OLIMPIO DE PERALTA question was part of the house rented to said
G.R. No. L-17332, August 18, 1921 association.

VILLAMOR, J.: Therefore, accused Olimpio de Peralta is acquitted.

FACTS: The President of the Philippine Marine

Union, Olimpio De Peralta was charged for
Trespass to Dwelling and sentenced to Arresto
Mayor for entering room no. 507 of Jaboneros St.
against the will of the occupant, Cecilio Toledo.
From this judgment, the accused appealed.

Two witnesses for the prosecution, Lucia Matias

and Daniel Alvarado said that the acccused pushed
or kicked the door, entered the room without
permission and took the glass even if he was
reminded not to take it because Toledo was not
present. On the other hand, two witnesses for the
defense, Bernardo Bildad and Bonifacio Viloria
testified that the accused entered the room of
Toledo looking for the desk glass in question,
accompanied by Lucia Matias whom he found
outside.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused committed

Trespass to Dwelling?

RULING: NO. There is no evidence that Toledo

had expressed his will in the sense of prohibiting the
accused Peralta from entering his room, and the
mere fact that the latter entered it, without the
permission of the occupant, does not constitute the
offense of trespass to dwelling. In order that this
crime may exist it is necessary that the entrance
should be against the express or presumed
prohibition of the occupant, and the lack of
permission should not be confused with
prohibition. In the decisions of the courts of Spain,
as well as in those of this jurisdiction, it has been
held uniformly that this crime is committed when a
person enters another's dwelling against the will of
the occupant, but not when the entrance is effected
without his knowledge or opposition.

In the present case it is to be supposed that the

members of the "Philippine Marine Union,"
among them the accused, had something
familiarity which warrants entrance into the room
occupied by the president of the association,
particularly when we consider the hour at which
the act in question happened (between half past
ten and eleven in the morning), the fact that the
door of the room was not barricaded or locked
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935
PEOPLE vs. AURELIO LAMAHANG
RECTO, J.:

FACTS: At early dawn on March 2, 1935, accused

Aurelio Lamahang was caught by Policeman Jose
Tomambing, who was on patrol in the act of
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of
a store of cheap goods located on C.R. Fuentes St.
of Iloilo City whose owner named Tan Yu was
sleeping. The accused had only succeeded in
breaking one board and in unfastening another from
the wall. He was then found guilty of Attempted
Robbery. Hence, the present appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was

erroneously declared guilty of Attempted Robbery.

RULING: YES. The fact under consideration does

not constitute attempted robbery but attempted
trespass to dwelling, committed by means of force,
with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating
circumstances.

In case of robbery, in order that the simple act of

entering by means of force or violence of another
person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to
commit this offense, it must be shown that the
offender clearly intended to take possession, for the
purpose of gain, of some personal property
belonging to another.

In the instant case, there is nothing in the record

from which such purpose of the accused may
reasonably be inferred. Also, there is nothing in the
record to justify a concrete finding that his final
objective, once he succeeded in entering the store,
was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates,
or to commit any other offense.

Considering the ruling of the Spain’s Supreme

Court, that in order to declare that such and such
overt acts constitute an attempted offense it is
necessary that their objective be known and
established, or that said acts be of such nature that
they themselves should obviously disclose the
criminal objective necessarily intended, said
objective and finality to serve as ground for the
designation of the offense.
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING
EN BANC
U.S. v. LORENZO ARCEO ET AL.,
G.R. No. 1491, March 5, 1904.
JOHNSON, J. :
1. CRIMINAL LAW; FORCIBLE ENTRY. —
The law which forbids a forcible entry into the
dwelling of another relates not only to the method
by which one may pass the threshold of the dwelling
of another without his consent but also to the
conduct immediately after entrance of one who so
enters.
2. ID.; ID.; INVIOLABILITY OF THE
DWELLING; POLICE POWER. — The right to
be free from unauthorized entrance into one’s
dwelling is one of the most sacred personal rights
secured by the law, and its only limitation is found
in the necessary exercise of the police power, under
which this private right must yield to the public
welfare.
3. ID.; ID.; EXPRESS PROHIBITION. — It is not
necessary to a conviction of the offense of forcible
entry that there should be an express prohibition to
enter; no one may enter the dwelling of another
without rendering himself liable under the law
unless the one seeking entrance comes within some
of the exceptions dictated by the law or private
policy.
FACTS: Lorenzo Arceo together with the other
defendants were found guilty of the crime of
entering the house of another with violence and
intimidation penalized under subsection 2 of Article
491 of the Penal Code.
That on the night (8 or 9pm) of February 20, 1903,
culpirts were armed with deadly weapons
specifically (1) gun and (2) bolos, entered the house
of Alejo Tiongson against the will of its occupants,
Alejo and his wife who were sleeping, his wife’s
sister named Marcela san Andres who was still
sewing and roused Alejo and his wife from their
sleep once she discovered someone entered their
house. One of the culprits has wounded Alejo took
some money, escaped towards the fields of Marcela
and ill-treated her.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court justified in
finding that the accused were guilty of the crime of
entering the residence of another against his will
and with violence and intimidation?
RULING: YES. The statute does not relate simply
to the method by which one may pass the threshold
of the residence of another without his consent, but
also to the conduct, immediately after entrance, of
him who enters the house of another without his
consent. He who being armed with deadly weapons
enters the residence of another in the nighttime,
without consent, and immediately commits acts of
violence and intimidation, is guilty of entering the
house of another with violence and intimidation.
The inviolability of the house is one of the most
fundamental of all the individual rights declared
and recognized in the political codes of civilized
nations. No one can enter into the home of another
without the consent of its owners or occupants.
The defendants were guilty of the crime of entering
the house of another with violence and
intimidation, without the consent of the owner,
with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity,
and hereby sentenced to prision correccional.
(Burglary v. Trespass to Dwelling)
The punishment for burglary is "to prevent the
breaking and entering of a dwelling house of
another in the nighttime for the purpose a felony
therein and there must have existed an intent to
enter for the purpose of committing a felony.
On the other hand, Trespass to Dwelling is to
prevent entrance into the dwelling house of another
at any time, either by day or by night, for any
purpose, against the will of its owner and entrance
against the will, simply, of the owner is punishable.
Under the provisions of the Penal Code entrance in
the nighttime can only be regarded as an
aggravation of the offense of entering.
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

SECOND DIVISION For this reason, it is not necessary that there should
have been a previous prohibition to enter by the
U.S. v. FAUSTINO MESINA inmates, since this is presumed, and because the
[G.R. No. 6717. October 19, 1911.] entry into the premises was effected against the will
TORRES, J.: of the occupants thereof, there being no proof that
the defendant entered the same with the permission
or the consent of any of them.
SYLLABUS
1. FORCIBLE ENTRY. — When a person enters In the commission of the crime there is no
the dwelling of another at night, through a window extenuating circumstance whatever to be
but without violence and while the inmates are considered, but there is the aggravating one of
asleep, although there was no express prohibition to nocturnity, since the defendant perpetrated the
enter, in the absence of proof that the entry was crime by taking advantage of the silence and
made with the knowledge of or by invitation of darkness of the night.
some inmate of the house, he commits the crime of
forcible entry. Under such circumstances, entry
against the will of the occupants is presumed.

FACTS: Faustino Mesina was on appeal from a

judgement rendered by Hon. Judge Hurd charging
him with the crime of Forcible Entry. At about 4
o’clock in the morning of May 19, 1910, Elena
Llanera was awakened by the noise produced on the
floor by a man’s steps, saw together with Damiana
the accused, Faustino Mesina. The latter then
hurriedly went into another room followed by the
three women who then saw the said party go out of
the window, which on that occasion was open, and
from there alight on the ground by supporting
himself upon a window of the ground floor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of Forcible Entry

was the proper crime to be charged.

RULING: YES. The Court affirmed the judgment

appealed, however the defendant shall be sentenced
to Arresto Major.

Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of

another against the latter’s will shall incur the
penalty specified therein, although the inmates of
the house did not forbid the defendant to enter the
same.

Nevertheless, when one enters a house by climbing

up into it and passing through a window thereof
which had been closed and was opened by the
perpetrator of the crime for the purpose of his entry,
even though no violence was employed in doing so,
it is unquestionable that the entry into the house, by
taking advantage of the darkness and when all the
inmates thereof were asleep, bears the character of
the crime of forcible entry.
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

It was fully proven that, the owner, Elena Llanera, morning of the said date, the defendant passed by
being awakened, early in the morning of the 19th of and advised him that the policemen should be
May, by the sound of the steps of a person who was ready who were to accompany him, Mesina, to
walking inside of the house near her bed which was the sitio of Bibiclat, and that the defendant
covered with a mosquito netting, both she and her immediately left and witness did not know where
companions who were sleeping with her under the the latter went. This testimony, combined with
same netting on raising one side of the same saw that of the offended party and her two witnesses,
and recognized the said person, by the light there and all taken as a whole, produce in the mind a
was in the house, as being the defendant, Faustino thorough conviction that the defendant did commit
Mesina, who, on observing that the said women the crime under prosecution. It is to be presumed
had awakened and had seen him, immediately and that after passing by the municipal building the
hastily entered the small room of the house, defendant went to the house where the crime was
followed by them, and went down out of the committed and climbed up into it through the
building through one of the windows of the said window, for this was not very high up.
room, which at that moment was open, by
supporting himself on a window of the entresol, For the reasons stated, the testimony of the wife of
located thereunder, which must have been the way the defendant can not be considered as proof of an
he got in, for the inmates of the house had closed alibi in his behalf, to the effect that at the hour and
that room window and all the others in the house on the date mentioned her husband was in his house
the night previous before retiring. and that Elena Llanera, subsequent to the
denunciation of the crime, had talked with her in
The defendant’s denial, his exculpatory allegations order that she might feel no resentment —
and the testimony of his witnesses were inasmuch as such statements were not proved and
unsuccessful in overthrowing the very positive the offended party denied that she had any
evidence of the prosecution, for his allegation that conversation whatever with Marcelina Santiago,
he was at the said house on the morning of the day the defendant’s wife.
aforementioned, for the purpose of making some
requests to the husband of the offended woman,
Elena Llanera, who, as she was in the granary
nearby, had to be called and on arriving at her house
he had a long conversation with her and not until
after she had her breakfast did he leave for the sitio
of Bibiclat, was not corroborated by the testimony
of his two witnesses, Buenaventura Maligsi and
Eusebio Landicho, the first of whom testified that
he was engaged that morning in hauling rice to the
warehouse of Elena Llanera, who was then inside
of this building, and the second witness, that he was
near the warehouse waiting for his neighbor named
Julio; they then saw the defendant enter the house
of the offended party and after a short while, during
which the latter, called by a little girl, returned to the
house, these witnesses saw the defendant come
down out of the house. This testimony, far from
proving the defendant’s statements, completely
disproves them and belies the fact affirmed by
Mesina relative to the long conversation; besides,
the offended party denied that the defendant was
in her house that morning.

Moreover, the testimony of the municipal

policeman, Timoteo Palis, corroborates the
evidence of the prosecution. This witness testified
that while he was on guard duty at the municipal
building a short while before 4 o’clock on the
ART. 280 – TRESPASS TO DWELLING

PEOPLE vs. ANACLETO UY ALMEDA

G.R. No. L-507, November 19, 1945
PARAS, J.:

FACTS: On the morning of November 13, 1940,

Almeda and his companions (Potenciano Villano and
Antonio Dysionglo) arrived at the house of Honorata
Limpo who was informed that her house will be
demolished and repaired, but she objected since her
husband was not present. Still, upon orders of
Almeda, his companions proceeded to gain entry
into the house by means of two ladders which they
placed against the front wall and to remove some
boards and iron sheets that served to cover the front
side. They only stopped when Honorata's son
named Francisco called the police.

The Court of First Instance of Laguna convicted

Almeda for the crime of qualified trespass to
dwelling. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant Almeda should

be convicted for the crime of qualified trespass to
dwelling.

RULING: YES. The Court affirmed the judgement

appealed.

It is only necessary to add that Honorata could not

have consented to the Almedia’s intrusion into the
house, which made him a trespasser, for the very
purpose already objected to by her. Moreover, the
method employed by appellant's men in effecting
entry suggests prior refusal on the part of Honorata
to admit them through its stairs.

Neither is there any point in appellant's pretense

that, one week before the occasion in question, he
had notified Honorata about the intended repairs,
because said notice did and could not mean her
subsequent conformity.

Furthermore, the alleged ownership is immaterial,

for even supposing that the house belonged to the
appellant, that fact alone did not authorize him to
do anything with or enter the house against the will
of its actual occupant. He could have invoked the
aid of the court for the exercise or protection of his
alleged proprietary rights. What is intended to be
protected and preserved by the law is the privacy of
one's dwelling, and, except in those cases
enumerated in the third paragraph of article 280 of
the Revised Penal Code, criminal intent inheres in
the unwelcome visit of a trespasser.