PEDRO GABRIEL and AVELINO NATIVIDAD, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS (First Division), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Pedro Gabriel and Avelino Natividad, along with Miguel Evangelista, arrived at the house of Sherman Jones and his wife Josefina at about 7:00 p.m. on April 19, 1949. They presented themselves as Meralco light inspectors. Mrs. Jones, who was on the stairs with her neighbor Mariquita Beltran, told them to wait on the porch. She then entered the living room, closed the door behind her, and went to the bedroom to inform her husband. While she was inside, accused Gabriel inspected the electric meter on the balcony and shouted to Natividad that the meter was running backward (“atras ang contador”). Natividad rushed into the living room and then pushed open the bedroom door with force, brushing aside Mrs. Jones who was behind it. Both Gabriel and Natividad entered the bedroom with flashlights and searched for a gadget they suspected was used to steal electricity, despite Sherman Jones’s protests. They left hastily upon realizing Sherman was serious in his protest, boarded their jeep, and later met a policeman whom they asked to accompany them back to the house, but they left upon seeing several Americans there. Sherman Jones later filed a complaint. The Court of Appeals found the entry was against the will of the spouses, as Mrs. Jones had made the appellants wait on the porch and closed the door to the interior.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners’ entry into the dwelling constituted the crime of trespass to dwelling, considering their claim that the original entry was lawful and that they were rendering a service to justice.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals convicting the petitioners of simple trespass to dwelling. The Court held that the entry was against the will of the occupants, as manifested by Mrs. Jones’s act of telling the appellants to wait on the porch and closing the door behind her, which constituted implied opposition to their entry. The porch, being an open part of the house, did not constitute entry into the dwelling with consent. The Court distinguished the cited cases (U.S. vs. Dionisio and Del Rosario, U.S. vs. Flemister, and People vs. De Peralta) on their facts, noting that in those cases, entry was either without opposition or under circumstances warranting entrance, unlike here where opposition was impliedly manifested. The Court also rejected the defense under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code (rendering service to justice), as the Court of Appeals found that the appellants merely suspected the presence of a transformer and were not armed with a search warrant, thus having no right to enter against the owner’s will. The judgment was affirmed.
