GR L 4133; (August, 1908) (Digest)
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO DULFO, defendant-appellant.
August 10, 1908
—
FACTS:
Pedro Dulfo was convicted by the trial court of the crime of allanamiento de morada (entering the house of another, against the will of the occupant) and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Dulfo admitted entering the house of Dagohoy, the complaining witness, between 12 and 2 AM on February 14, 1907. At the time, Dagohoy was absent, having left the house in the charge of his daughters, Maximina (18) and Filomena (12-13 years old). Dulfo claimed he entered the house upon the invitation of Filomena, who opened the door for him. Filomena denied inviting or admitting him.
The Supreme Court, giving Dulfo the benefit of the doubt, found his statement that he was invited by Filomena to be substantially true. The trial judge had declined to make a finding on the conflicting testimony but convicted Dulfo on the ground that Filomena’s age (12-13 years) rendered her invitation and opening of the door insufficient to relieve Dulfo of criminal responsibility for entering the house without the owner’s consent. Evidence indicated Filomena was old enough to have had prior “amorous relations” with Dulfo. There was no proof of an express prohibition from the father against his daughters extending such an invitation.
ISSUE:
Whether entry into a dwelling house, upon the invitation of a minor member of the household (12-13 years old) who was left in charge, in the absence of the owner, constitutes the crime of allanamiento de morada.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and acquitted Pedro Dulfo.
The Court held that an essential element of allanamiento de morada is that the entry must be made “without the consent or, more accurately speaking, against the will of the occupant.” The prosecution bears the burden of affirmatively establishing this fact. The term “against” (contra) signifies “negativa, oposicion, manifiesta a que se haga alguna cosa” (negative, manifest opposition to something being done).
The Court further held that where the owner is not the sole occupant, an invitation from a member of the household generally negates the “against the will” element, unless it is clearly shown that the inviting member was forbidden to extend such an invitation and the person entering was aware of that prohibition. All members of a household are presumed to have authority to extend invitations to enter, as this is consistent with universal custom and avoids an unreasonable burden on outsiders. An entry by invitation of a household member will not be presumed “against” the householder’s wish merely because the owner was absent and had no opportunity to give or withhold consent.
Regarding the minor’s age, the Court concluded that Filomena (at least 12 years old, and left in charge with her older sister) 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,” especially since there was no proof of an express prohibition from her father.