CRIMES AGAINST

THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAWS OF THE STATE

ARTICLE 128.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

R EP ORTER:
ERM EL INE J. TAMP US
 CARLOS CARPIO, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. L-64349 May 27, 1988

Issue:

Whether or not CARLOS CARPIO was guilty of the felony,

Violation of Domicile.
 Facts:
Based on the information fi led by the witness, Corazon Abalos:
On or about March 13, 1982, in Manila, Carpio, being then the Brgy. Chairman of
Barrio Slip Zero, Tondo, a public offi cer, while in the per formance of, in relation to
his offi cial duties, without any justifi able order, did enter and conduct illegal search
inside the dwelling of Corazon Abalos, by forcing his way in purpor tedly looking for
a cer tain "Mundong" against the will and without the previous consent of Corazon
Abalos.
However, these complaints were not fi led by Corazon Abalos against Carpio until
af ter cer tain events had taken place.

The following day, March 14, 1982, at about 4:00 in the af ternoon, Carpio was
summoned in his house by the residents. He was informed that one Reynaldo Abalos
a.k.a. "Long Hair," husband of complainant Corazon Abalos, was brandishing his bolo
in public.
 Facts:
In the performance of his duty to preserve peace in the area as
Brgy. Chairman, admonished Reynaldo Abalos of the consequences of
his actions and the danger that the same may cause the bystanders
and the public. Abalos merely responded by looking at Carpio without
a word and walked towards his own house.

As Carpio pursued Abalos, he saw complainant's cousin, Victor

Aglinao, and 20 other persons armed with bladed weapons, pipes and
bolos, blocking his way. Compelled to save his life, Carpio cried for
help, and immediately some residents went to his aid.
 Facts:
Reynaldo Abalos, unable to retaliate physically against Carpio for the
previous incident wherein Carpio publicly reprimanded him, and his
company , abetted by one Pat. Enrico Cruz, proceeded to Carpio's house,
destroyed his store, and hacked his house, with Carpio trembling with
fear inside. The group even threatened to kill Carpio as Pat. Cruz just
watched.
The Sandiganbayan however found Carpio guilty of the charge
proff ered by Corazon Abalos.

In convicting Carpio, the Sandiganbayan relied on Corazon's sole

testimony; and that testimony referred to Carpio's alleged criminal
intrusion into Corazon's residence on the 13 th of March, a day before the
occurrence of the events giving rise to the cause to look for and arrest
her husband and /or his companions.

Hence, this petition to the Cour t.

 Ruling:

The Court acquitted the accused Carlos Carpio pertaining

to the crime of violation of domicile.

b. that he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the

dwelling and /or to make search therein for papers or other
eff ects.

In this Elements
case, accompanied by Sgt. Perez and his men,
Application
Carpio, went tothethe house of complainant to arrest Reynaldo
a. that
Abalos and the others
offender is a for destroying his house.
public officer
Unfortunately, they were unable to arrest Reynaldo Abalos
or
and company.
employee.
 Ruling:

And so, the group of Carpio proceeded to the police station to

enter complaint at the police blotter and at the same time sought
police protection against the husband Abalos after wife Corazon
Abalos refused Carpio and other peace offi cers entry to her house,
contrary to the previous statement of complaint tendered by
Corazon herself, that allegedly, Carpio without any justifi able order,
did enter and conduct illegal search inside their dwelling,
subsequently, force his way in against the will and without her
previous consent.
It is crystal clear therefore, that there was nothing that connotes
unauthorized entrance to Corazon’s dwelling as she claimed in her
complaint.
Ruling:
Fur ther, as per the Cour t, conviction rest on the testimony of a single witness,
provided he appears trustworthy and reliable.
Corazon Abalos cannot however be so characterized as a witness. Not only is
her evidence belied by the proofs of the defense, inclusive of the testimony of
impartial, objective persons, it also makes no sense, since it describes a search
for a friend of her husband and an illegal entr y into her house for that precise
purpose by the barangay chairman, who had no conceivable reason for doing so on
that day.
Rejection of Corazon's testimony is thus called for. Indeed, it is not
unreasonable to consider her accusation a concocted one, designed "to counteract
the petitioner's complaint against Pat. Enrico Cruz“, considering that, as the
Solicitor General points out, "she and her husband rely for subsistence and
support" on said Pat. Cruz.

Thus, appealed decision was REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and another entered
ACQUIT TING petitioner Carlos Carpio of the off ense charged.
Thank you