THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. OLIMPIO DE PERALTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

About the month of October, 1919, and for
sometime previously Cecilio Toledo held the position of president of
the “Philippine Marine Union,” and in such capacity, he had the
privilege of occupying, as his dwelling, a room of house No. 507 of
Jaboneros Street of this city, which was rented to said association.
About the middle of said month of October, Toledo was discharged from
the position of president and was succeeded by Olimpio de Peralta. The
latter, for the purpose of looking for a desk glass which he believed
was the property of the union, entered the room in question in the
morning of the 16th of the same month. This gave rise to the
information for trespass to dwelling against Peralta, in which it is
alleged that he entered the room of Toledo against the will of the
occupant. Trial was had and the accused was sentenced to suffer two
months and one day of arresto mayor, to pay a fine of 400 pesetas, and costs. From this judgment the present appeal was taken.

Two witnesses for the prosecution, Lucia Matias and Daniel
Alvarado, testify as to how the accused entered the room on the day in
question. The former stated that she was inside the room, the door of
which was closed, when the accused pushed the door; and that she, upon
seeing him already inside, asked him: “Why did you enter without
permission?” to which the accused answered: “I need something in this
room,” and Lucia Matias told him not to take away the glass because
Toledo was absent. The second witness, Daniel Alvarado, states that he
was inside the room cleaning a phonograph when the accused struck the
door and he heard a strong blow which he believes was a kick against
the door given by the accused.

On the other hand, two witnesses for the defense, Bernardo Bildad
and Bonifacio Viloria testify similarly that the accused on the day in
question, between half past ten and eleven in the morning, entered the
room of Toledo looking for the desk glass in question, accompanied by
Lucia Matias whom he found outside.

After a careful study
of the testimony given in the case, we are of the opinion that the
accused, after calling at or near the door, pushed it and without the
permission of the occupants entered the room with the object of taking
away the desk glass. 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 provided for and penalized in article 491 of the Penal
Code, 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.

As Groizard says in his commentaries on article 504 of the Penal
Code of Spain, corresponding to article 491 of that of the Philippines:
“It is not necessary, in the ordinary life of men, in order to call at
the door of a house or enter it, to obtain previous permission from the
owner who lives in it. With the utmost good faith may a person, to whom
entrance has not been denied beforehand, suppose that the owner of the
room has no objection to receiving him in it.” And in the present case
it is to be supposed that the members of the “Philippine Marine Union,”
among them the accused, had some 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 with a key, and
the circumstance that the room in question was part of the house rented
to said association.

For the reasons above stated, the judgment appealed from is
reversed, and the accused Olimpio de Peralta is acquitted, with costs
of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Avancena JJ., concur.