People v. Lindio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused was prosecuted for breaking into a dwelling (allanamiento de morada) with violence and intimidation. The accused gained entry by cutting a string that fastened the door. Once inside, he engaged in a quarrel with the inmates. Procedural History: The court below rendered a judgment against the accused. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the court below.
Issue(s)
Whether the entrance by cutting a string fastening the door constitutes an act of violence. Whether the threats against the inmates, accompanied by the flourishing of a bolo, constitute intimidation. Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below with modifications. The penalty was increased to five years of prision correccional and a fine of 325 pesetas, with the accessories of article 61 of the Penal Code, due to the consideration of the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the entrance by cutting a string fastening the door constitutes an act of violence: The Court held that the act of cutting the fastenings of the door was an act of violence. This action, even if it involved a seemingly minor act like cutting a string, demonstrated a forceful means of gaining entry. The Court rejected the defense's argument that the entrance was not forbidden and therefore not against the will of the occupant, emphasizing that the nature of the entry itself was forceful. The Court cited United States vs. Arceo (3 Phil. Rep., 381) as authority for the principle that no express prohibition of entry is required for the crime of allanamiento de morada. On Whether the threats against the inmates, accompanied by the flourishing of a bolo, constitute intimidation: The Court found that the threats made against the inmates, coupled with the display of a bolo, constituted intimidation. This element of the crime involves the use of threats or force to instill fear in the occupants. The Court considered the accused's actions inside the dwelling, which included engaging in a quarrel with the inmates while armed, as sufficient to establish intimidation. This, combined with the violent entry, satisfied the elements of the offense. On Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be considered: The Court noted that the judgment of the court below did not take into consideration the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. The Court found that this circumstance was present and applicable to the case. Consequently, the Court increased the penalty to five years of prision correccional and imposed a fine of 325 pesetas, along with the corresponding accessories of the penalty as provided by article 61 of the Penal Code. This modification aimed to impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the offense, considering the additional element of nighttime commission.
Main Doctrine
The crime of breaking into a dwelling (allanamiento de morada) with violence and intimidation is committed when entry is gained by any act of force, however slight, and when threats are made against the inmates, even without express prohibition of entry. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity may be considered to increase the penalty.