Geroche vs.

People, 742 SCRA 514, November 26, 2014

FACTS:

On the evening of May 14, 1989, Baleriano Limbag awoke when Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and
Generoso Marfil suddenly entered into his house and, without a search warrant, began scouring the place
for firearms, but instead took away his airgun. Limbag also sustained injuries as a result of the raid.

Geroche, Garde, and Marfil were all charged with the crime of Violation of Domicile, under Art. 128 of
RPC and Less Serious Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the RPC.

The RTC found the above-mentioned accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Less Serious Physical
Injurie, but acquitted them of the crime of Violation of Domicile because, according to the trial court, the
prosecution failed to prove that petitioners were public officers, which is an essential element of the
crime.

The petitioners then appealed their case to the CA, praying that the decision of the lower court be
reversed. The CA, however, ruled that the petitioners should not be convicted of the crime of Less Serious
Physical Injuries but, rather, Violation of Domicile, considering their judicial admissions that they were
the barangay captain (Geroche) and part of the CAFGU (Garde and Marfil).

ISSUES:

(1) What is the crime committed?

(2) Whether the accused are criminally liable

HELD:

(1) The crime committed is Violation of Domicile under Art. 128 of the RPC. Violation of Domicile
is committed by any public officer or employee, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter
any dwellings 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.

(2) YES, the petitioners are guilty of Violation of Domicile. One of the essential elements of the
crime of Violation of Domicile is that the accused be a public officer or employee. In the present
case, the Court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA. In their testimonies
and pleadings, Geroche did not deny that he was the barangay captain. Likewise, Garde and
Marfil did not refute the fact that they were CAFGU members. By virtue of their positions, they
are considered to be public officers or employees. Hence, they can be found guilty of Violation of
Domicile, as all the elements for the crime are met.