Article 280 - Trespass to dwelling.

Elements:

1. The offender is a private person;

2. He enters the dwelling of another; and
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.

***Qualified if with violence or intimidation.

Why is the offender a private person? Because if it's a public officer, then it will be violation of domicile. Not trespass
to dwelling anymore.

When do you say that the entrance is against the latter's will? - The Supreme Court has promulgated decisions. There
are cases which describe when the entrance is against the latter's will. If there is an express prohibition, (The owner says
“wag kang pumasok ditto , then there's already an express prohibition.

Implied prohibition

Entrance is against the will because of implied prohibition to enter

1. Where the entrance is made by cutting a string fastening the door;

2. Where the entry was made by employing force against the closed door of the house;
3. Where entry was made at late hour of the night, while occupants are asleep, by scaling a wall and forcing to
open the window which was closed and barred;
4. Where the accused enters the dwelling at a late hour and the occupants are sleeping with closed doors;
5. Closed doors.

Example:

1. Nonoy knows that Dodong has a lot of money in his vault hidden inside his store. One midnight, Nonoy broke
open a store window, let himself inside, broke the vault to get the cash and then left. Can Nonoy be held for
trespass to dwelling? NO more. Look at the purpose of the offender, if there is an intent or if the entry is for the
purpose of committing a more serious crime and the offender executes his plan or achieves his intent or
purpose, the trespass charges will yield to the more serious crime committed. In this case, there is robbery w/
force upon things.

2. Nonoy bears a grudge against Dodong. They are political rivals. He wanted to get rid of him. One midnight,
Nonoy surreptitiously opened a store window, let himself inside Dodong’s store and stabbed Dodong, while the
latter was sleeping. The latter died. The case is no longer tresspass to dwelling but murder, qualified by
treachery. Because the intent is to kill. To kill is the purpose in trespassing.

3. Nonoy entered Dodong’s store by forcibly opening a closed window. Dodong also sleeps in his store, which has a
bed in it. When Dodong saw Nonoy, he tried to arrest him but Nonoy, afraid of being turned over to the police,
stabbed Dodong. Dodong’s intestine was lacerated because of Nonoy’s act of stabbing but survived. – Separate
crimes of trespass to dwelling and Frustrated murder; Pp v. Medina. Purpose of entering was not mentioned.
The killing was committed on the occasion of trespassing.

4. The maid allowed the accused to enter. Wnot until he can see the daughterhen the father learned his intention
was to court the daughter, he got mad, berated the accused and told him to leave. The accused refused not until
he can see the daughter. Before being forcibly pushed out, the accused answered back and argued with the
father. Did the accused commit trespass? – No, because one of the occupants of the house allowed him to
enter. There can be no trespass to dwelling if the accused was allowed to enter.

IS THERE AN INSTANCE WHEN ENTRY, EVEN IF WITHOUT CONSENT, IS ALLOWED?

No trespass if the entry is: JUSTIFIED

a. To prevent serious harm to himself, to an occupant or to a 3rd person

b. To render some service to humanity or justice
c. In case of cafes, taverns, inns, public houses while they are open.

EXAMPLE:

1. Junjun and Jojo had a fist fight, Junjun was able to get a gun in the course of their fight. Jojo ran away and
entered Joy’s apartment. – Is that allowed? Yes, because the act of trespassing is done in order to prevent
serious harm to himself when he entered the apartment.
Article 269. UNLAWFUL ARREST

- Is committed by any person who shall arrest another in order to deliver him to the proper authorities although
he is not authorized by law to do so.
- Remember that the purpose is for the delivery of the person arrested to the proper authorities. If the purpose is
noble, it is a criminal act because the offender is not authorized by law to arrest another.
- Offender is a private person however, a public officer may also be liable if he acts in his private capacity.

Elements:

1. That the offender arrests/detains another person;

2. That the arrest or detention is to deliver the person to the proper authorities; and
3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or that there is no reasonable ground to.

The Abatan Lincod Mangroves Nipa Growers Organization (AKIMANGO) is a cooperative duly registered with the
Cooperative Development Auhtority. Its members cut, gather, and weave nipa palms.

A Barangay kagawad and tanod saw several individual harvesting nipa palms in a plantation. Accused approached them
and asked who gave them authority to harvest. Victim Pacis replied that they were ALIMANGO members.

Doubting Pacis’ claim, Duropan (kgwd) and Coloma (tanod) pushed Pacis and his companions on board two paddle
boats. Pacis then protested and inquired whether Duropan and Coloma can arrest them w/out a warrant their
objections, Pacis’ group was brought to the Police Station of Bohol.

The offenders were convicted of unlawful arrest. All the elements were present. There was an intent to arrest. The
victims were brought to the police station, accused does not have the authority to effect the arrest, they are mere
tanod and kagawad. They are not vested with the power to arrest. Besides, there was no reason for the arrest
because there was no in flagrante delicto crime and there is no warrant of arrest.

ART 270: KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN MINORS

Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is committed by any person who had been:

1. Entrusted with the custody of a minor; and

2. Deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parent or guardian.

Pp v. Marquez

Anna borrowed a 3 month-old baby from her mother to buy the baby some clothes, milk and food. The mother agreed
because it was not unusual for Ana to give these supplies to the baby. Anna failed to return the child that afternoon as
agreed upon,

In her defense, she claimed that the mother allowed her to take custody of the child because they had an agreement
that Anna would look for a prospective adoptive parent. She was charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

SC: it is clear from the records of the case that Marquez was entrusted with the custody of Justine. Finally, even if it
were true that Merano subsequently agreed to have Castillo adopt Justine, as evidenced by rhe “Kasunduan sa
Pagtalikod sa Karapatan at Pagpapa-ampon sa Isang Anak”, this would still not affect Marquez’s liability as the crime
of kidnapping and failure to return the minor had been fully consummated upon her deliberate failure to return
Justine to Merano.

Deliberate failure to return the child to the mother. TAKE NOTE OF THIS

ARTICLE 271: INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME

In inducing a minor to abandon his home, the offender induces the minor to leave the place of his parents, guardian or
any person having custody of the minor.

It is not necessary that the minor actually left the place. It suffices that there was inducement done on the minor to
leave the said place.

ELEMENTS:

1. The minor is living in the home of the parents or guardian or the person entrusted with his custody;
2. The offender induces said minor to abandon such home.

Examples:

1. Duday, a kasambahay, is attached to her alaga. She told 8 y.o alaga, Buboy, that her hometown Iloilo is so much
better than Manila and has great beaches. Buboy wants to go to Iloilo with her. Is she guilty of inducing a minor?
-no, because she merely described Iloilo. The Inducement must be malicious and with criminal intent. Any act
which tends to influence, persuade or prevail upon a minor.

2. Suppose that there is this 17 y.o orphan, M, leaving in the house of couple A and B although he was not legally
adopted. He just resides in the said house. M had a mutual understanding with a boy, C. Suppose that C
promised the orphan marriage and on account of such promise, the orphan was persuaded to abandon her
home. Can C be liable for inducing the minor to abandon her home? No. C is not liable since the orphan did not
abandon the home of her parents, guardian or persons entrusted with her custody. In fact, the couples were
not legally entrusted with her custody. The orphan was not their adopted child to begin with.

3. Ana saw a family resting in Burnham Park. Jojo, father, and Duday, mother, were with their son, Jomar. Anna
befriended the parents. Moments later, Anna gave food to Jomar and lured him away from his mother. While
Duday and Jojo were busy doing something, Ana whisked away Jomar, ran and boarded a jeepney. Duday and
Jojo loudly shouted their pleas for her to return their son. She failed to return the minor. (People v. Mendoza)

SC: THE ACCUSED WAS SAYING THAT THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD WAS GIVEN TO HER BUT THERE WAS NO
SHOWING OF THE SAME. SHE WAS A MERE STRANGER WHOM THE PARENTS MET AT THE PARK. WHEN SHE
FORCIBLY TOOK THE CHILD AWAY FROM THE PARENTS, THE CRIME IS KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION.

ARTICLE 275: ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE’S VICTIM

COMPELS ONE TO BE A GOOD SAMARITAN.

1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender found in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render such assistance w/out detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.

2. Failing to render help/assistance to another whom the offender has accidentally wounded or injured
(Abandonment of one’s own victim)

3. Failing to deliver a child under 7 years of age whom the offender has found abandoned, to the authorities or to
his family, or failing to take him to a safe place. (Abandonment of a minor)

It was almost midnight. Dodong was walking on his way home. At an intersection near the place where he lives, he saw a
man lying on the side of a busy street, almost near the canal. The man was bleeding. It is obvious that the man was a
victim of hit and run accident. The man asked help from Dodong but the latter, scared at the sight of blood, ignored him
and walked on.

HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR ABANDONING PERSONS IN DANGER. FOR THE CRIME TO CONSTITUTE ABANDONMENT, THE
VICTIM SHALL BE FOUND IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE. IN THIS CASE, THE MAN WAS FOUND IN A BUSY STREET.

Examples:

1. Toto was driving his car, perfectly compliant with traffic rules and regulation, when suddenly the tire of his car
rolled over a stone. The stone flew. Unknown to him, the stone hit the head of a bystander. The latter’s head
started to bleed. Unable to see what happened, Toto continued driving. Is Toto liable for abandonment? No,
because he was not aware that he had to render assistance. He has no knowledge of the accident.

2. Suppose he saw the injury, and he sped up instead of helping the woman, Toto argues that he is not criminally
liable because it was purely an accident. What charges will you file against him? Abandonment of one’s victim.
 There was no negligence with the driving but the fact that you abandoned your victim whose injury was
caused by the accidental hitting of the stone. (par 2)

3. An intoxicated Toto was driving his car. He recklessly drove his car and crashed into a man who was riding his
bicycle. The man sustained back bruises requiring him 10 days of hospital admission. Instead of helping the man,
Toto sped up and left the wounded man. What is Toto’s criminal liability. Reckless imprudence resulting in less
serious physical injuries and abandonment of one’s victim.

4. Jojo fired a gun at Tim’s leg. Tim was unable to move. He was bleeding profusely. Jojo looked at his victim
intently. Jojo then abandoned him in distress and left. Can Jojo be held criminally liable for abandonment? NO
because in Par 2 of this article, the act of injuring shall be accidental. In this case, he shall be liable for the crime
he intended-attempted homicide, if no intent, physical injuries.

ARTICLE 276: ABANDONING A MINOR

1. Offender has the custody of the child;

2. Child is under 7 years old;
3. He abandons such child;
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned. (if with intent to kill-murder, parricide/infanticide
as the case may be)

ARTICLE 277: ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY CUSTODIAN

1. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor;

2. He delivers the minor to public institutions or other persons;
3. The one who entrusted such child to the offender has not consented to such act, or in case of the latter’s
absence, proper authorities have not been consented to.

ART 277: INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS (UNDER SAME ART)

Elements:

1. Offender is a parent

2. He neglects his children by not giving them education (deliberate deprivation of support, may also fall under RA
9262, especially if he is capable to support).

3. That his station in life requires such education and his financial condition permits it.

It is committed by any person who, having entrusted with the living and education of a minor shall deliver a minor to
a public institution or other persons w/out the consent of the person who entrusted such minor to the care of the
offender or, in his absence, without the consent of the proper authorities.

ARTICLE 278: EXPLOITATION OF MINORS

ELEMENTS:

1. Causing any boy/girl under 16 y.o to engage in any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or contortion,
the offender being any person.
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not the children descendants of the offender in exhibitions of
acrobat, gymnast, rope walker, diver, or wild animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc., or circus
manager or person engaged in any said callings
3. Employing any descendants under 12 y.o in dangerous exhibitions enumerated on the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said callings.
4. Delivering a child under 16 yrs. Old gratuitously to any person if any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2,
or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher, or a person entrusted
in any capacity with the care of such child.
5. Including any child under 16 y.o to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians or curators or teachers to
follow any person entrusted in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender being any person.

ARTICLE 282. GRAVE THREATS.

1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor, or property or that of his family any wrong
amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition even though not unlawful, and
the offender attained his purpose.
 2. By making such threat with the infliction upon his person, honor, property or that of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition even though not unlawful and
without the offender attaining his purpose.

3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to any demand of
money or imposition of any condition.

In this 3rd form, the threat must be deliberate and must create in the mind of the person threatened the belief
that the threats will be carried into effect.

Examples:

1. Dodong sent the message to his OFW neighbor, Allan. “papatayin ko ang asawa mo kapag hindi ka nagpadala ng
10k. Two days later, Allan sent Php 10,000.00 to Dodong. Grave threats, there is a threat to onflict wrong to the
wife, the wrong amounts to a crime (homicide or murder) and there is a demand of money; the purpose was
attained.

What if hindi naman nagpadala si Allan (2nd type of grave threat)

2. W/out any prior fight or provocation, Dodong said “papatayin ko asawa mo” (3rd kind)

3. Pointing a gun at Anna, Coco uttered the words “Ibigay mo sakin and 5k sa wallet mo kundi papatayin kita” – not
grave threats, there is intent to gain, robbery because force and intimidation were employed.

Examples:

Lawyer was engaged by client for 50k as acceptance fees. Lawyer failed to file the annulment case w/n 3 months since
he was paid. Lawyer even lied that he already filed the annulment case. Client, upon discovery of the lawyer’s falsehood,
orally demanded the return of the acceptance fees. The lawyer having failed to return the fees, the client sent demand
letter telling the lawyer that he will be constrained to file disbarment case and estafa case if the lawyer does not return
the 50k acceptance fees within 10 days.

There is no grave threats because the client is perfectly acting within his rights. The letter telling the lawyer that he will
file cases is not tantamount to a wrong amounting to crime. The client has the right to pursue the cases because the
lawyer was an erring lawyer. There are badges of violation of the professional code. The client can file a case, the letter
demanding the return of his money does not constitute grave threats.