Revised Penal Code (RPC). Art. 128 Violation of Domicile Art. 280 Tresprass to Dwelling
Summary
TLDRThis video script delves into the distinctions between Article 128 and Article 280 of the United Nations, focusing on the crimes of 'violation of domicile' and 'trespass to dwelling'. It clarifies that violation of domicile, a crime against the state's fundamental laws, is committed by public officers or employees and includes unauthorized entry, search, and refusal to leave a dwelling. In contrast, trespass to dwelling, a crime against personal liberty, is committed by private individuals. The script uses hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the differences in liability between public officers and private persons in these legal contexts.
Takeaways
- ๐ Article 128 and Article 280 are part of the legal framework addressing different types of dwelling violations.
- ๐ Article 128, violation of domicile, falls under Title II, which deals with crimes against the fundamental law of the state, while Article 280, trespass to dwelling, is categorized under Title IX, concerning crimes against personal liberty and security.
- ๐ฎโโ๏ธ Violation of domicile typically involves public officers or employees who misuse their authority, such as entering a dwelling against the owner's will, searching without consent, or refusing to leave when asked.
- ๐ท Trespass to dwelling, as per Article 280, is generally committed by private individuals and involves entering a dwelling against the owner's will without additional acts.
- ๐ The distinction between the two articles lies in the offender's status, the nature of the acts committed, and the legal titles under which they are categorized.
- ๐ Article 128 includes three specific acts: entering a dwelling against the owner's will, searching papers or effects without consent, and refusing to leave after being asked.
- ๐ก๏ธ Crimes against the fundamental law of the state, such as violation of domicile, often involve a breach of constitutional rights like unreasonable searches and seizures.
- ๐ โโ๏ธ A public officer is not liable under Article 128 if they enter a dwelling with the owner's permission, even if later asked to leave.
- ๐จ A private individual entering a dwelling against the owner's will without any additional acts would be guilty of trespass to dwelling under Article 280, not violation of domicile.
- ๐ค The script provides scenarios to differentiate between the two articles, emphasizing the importance of the offender's status and the specific acts committed.
- ๐ The video concludes with a review of the key differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling, highlighting the legal distinctions and implications.
Q & A
What are the two articles discussed in the video?
-The video discusses the difference between Article 128 and Article 280.
Under which title does violation of domicile fall?
-Violation of domicile falls under Title II, which is crimes against the fundamental law of the state.
Which title does the crime of trespass to dwelling belong to?
-Trespass to dwelling is under Title IX, which deals with crimes against personal liberty and security.
What are some examples of crimes against the fundamental law of the state?
-Examples include unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as violations of the Bill of Rights such as Articles 124, 125, and 126.
What is the general rule regarding the offenders under Title II crimes?
-The general rule is that almost all offenders under Title II crimes are public officers and employees, except for Article 133.
What is the exception to the general rule of offenders under Title II crimes?
-The exception is Article 133, which deals with offending religious feelings and can be committed by anyone, not just public officers or employees.
What are the elements of Article 128?
-The elements of Article 128 include the offender being a public officer or employee, entering the dwelling of another against the latter's will, searching papers or effects without consent, and refusing to leave after being asked.
According to the video, who can be liable for crimes against the fundamental laws under Article 128?
-Public officers who are authorized to execute search warrants and warrants of arrest can be liable for crimes against the fundamental laws under Article 128.
What is the difference between the acts punished under Article 128 and Article 280?
-Article 128 includes entering a dwelling against the will of the owner, searching papers or effects without consent, and refusing to leave after being asked. Article 280 focuses on entering a dwelling against the will of the owner without the additional acts.
In the scenario where a policeman takes shelter in Pedro's house and is asked to leave, is the policeman liable under Article 128?
-No, the policeman is not liable under Article 128 because he did not enter against the will of the owner, did not search papers or effects without consent, and was not asked to leave after surreptitiously entering.
If a policeman enters a private house without a judicial order and over the owner's opposition, is he guilty of trespass to dwelling?
-No, the policeman would be guilty of violation of domicile under Article 128, as trespass to dwelling under Article 280 is committed by a private individual.
What is the criminal liability of Juan if he enters Pedro's dwelling against Pedro's will?
-If Juan is a public officer, his crime is violation of domicile under Article 128. If he is a private individual, his criminal liability is trespass to dwelling under Article 280.
Outlines
๐ Legal Distinctions Between Article 128 and Article 280
This paragraph discusses the differences between Article 128 and Article 280 in the context of Philippine law. Article 128, under Title II, pertains to violations of the fundamental law of the state, specifically addressing public officers and employees who commit acts such as entering a dwelling against the owner's will, searching without consent, or refusing to leave after being asked. It emphasizes the infringement on the Bill of Rights, such as unreasonable searches and seizures, and the due process clause. Article 280, under Title IX, deals with trespass to dwelling committed by private individuals. The distinction lies in the offender's status and the nature of the crime, with Article 128 focusing on public officers violating domicile and Article 280 on private individuals trespassing.
๐ Scenario Analysis of Domicile Violation and Trespassing
The second paragraph delves into hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the application of Article 128 and Article 280. It clarifies that a public officer entering a dwelling with the owner's consent, as in the case of a policeman seeking shelter, does not constitute a violation under Article 128. Conversely, a public officer entering a private house without a judicial order and against the owner's will would be guilty of violation of domicile. The paragraph also distinguishes between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling based on the offender's status and the act committed. It concludes with a review of the key differences, reiterating that violation of domicile is committed by public officers and is a crime against the fundamental law of the state, while trespass to dwelling is committed by private individuals and is a crime against personal liberty and security.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กArticle 128
๐กArticle 280
๐กDwelling
๐กFundamental Law of the State
๐กPublic Officer or Employee
๐กPrivate Individual
๐กCrimes Against Personal Liberty and Security
๐กDue Process Clause
๐กBill of Rights
๐กTrespasser
๐กOffending Religious Feelings
Highlights
The video discusses the differences between Article 128 and Article 280 of the United States Code.
Article 128 pertains to the violation of domicile by public officers or employees, while Article 280 covers trespass to dwelling by private individuals.
Violation of domicile falls under Title II, which addresses crimes against the fundamental law of the state, including infringements on the Bill of Rights.
Trespass to dwelling is categorized under Title IX, focusing on crimes against personal liberty and security.
The video explains that most offenders under Title II are public officers and employees, with the exception of Article 133 which can be committed by anyone.
Article 128 specifically targets public officers authorized to execute search warrants and warrants of arrest.
The acts punished under Article 128 include entering a dwelling against the owner's will, searching papers or effects without consent, and refusing to leave after being asked.
Article 280 is less specific, focusing solely on entering a dwelling against the owner's will without additional acts.
The video provides a scenario analysis to determine liability under Article 128, involving a policeman taking shelter in a house and being asked to leave.
The policeman in the scenario is not liable under Article 128 as he did not commit any of the specified acts.
A policeman entering a private house without a judicial order and against the owner's will may be guilty of violation of domicile, not trespass to dwelling.
The video clarifies that trespass to dwelling, under Article 280, is committed by a private individual, not a public officer.
Juan, as a hypothetical private individual, would be liable for trespass to dwelling if he enters Pedro's house against his will.
The video concludes by reviewing the distinctions between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling, emphasizing the different legal contexts and offenders.
Study hard and pray harder is the closing advice, encouraging viewers to work diligently in their studies and seek spiritual guidance.
Transcripts
hello everyone in this video we will
discuss the difference between article
128
and article 280. united
now violation of the missile at
trespasser dwelling
so let's start differentially violation
of domicile
it is under title ii which is crimes
against the fundamental law of the state
while untrespassed dwelling naman i
under title 9
or crimes against personal liberty and
security details are titled two
sinasabinating crimes against the
fundamental law of the state cassette
they violate some of the provisions of
the bill of rights
like for example unreasonable searches
and seizures
union articles 128 129
and 130 wherein they violate section 2
of the bill of rights tapos we also have
the due process clause or no person
shall be deprived of life liberty or
property without due process of law
so ethereum are articles one two four
one two five and one two six
where an individual is unlawfully
deprived of
liberty crimes against the fundamental
law of the state
casino fundamentally
now on counterpart now title ii is a
title nine details are titled
almost all of the offenders here are
public officers
and employees maliban along so article
133 which is
offending the religious feelings dietosa
offending the religious feelings under
133
anahala gaydon yes it may be committed
by anyone
or by any person hindi lamong limited so
public officers
and employees under title ii
which has crimes against the fundamental
law of the state almost all of the
offenders here
human reliable daytona crimes are public
officers
and employees that is the general rule
again
arbitrary detention delaying release
explosion
violation of domicile a searching
domicile without witnesses
crimes against religious worship
interruption of religious worship
all of the offenders there are public
officers and employees
accept an exception d2i article 133
which is under title 2 then it on
article 133i
offending the religious feelings at an
offender dito i
hindi lemon public officer or employee
detos article 133 it can be committed by
anyone which means that it can be
committed by any person
not just public officer or employee okay
so let's proceed now aetopoam article
128 which discusses violation of the
missile
article 280 regarding qualified trespass
to dueling
let us discuss their elements so atopong
that the offender is a public officer or
employee
under 128 pero under 218 in a man
the offender is a private person so ibik
sabihin
an isapang distinction no violation of
domicile
trespasser dwelling i in violation of
domicile the offender is
a public officer or employee while in
trespasser dwelling
the offender is a private person now
with respects
article 128 under number one the
offender is a public officer and
employee
tanda under the public officers who may
be liable for crimes
against the fundamental laws are those
who are possessed
of the authority to execute search
warrants and warrants of arrest
ibik sabine hindi llaman basta basta
public officer
you must be a public officer who is
authorized to execute
search warrants and warrants of arrest
and then let us go to the different acts
punished under article 128.
dwelling very specific that he enters
the dwelling of another
against the latter's will peroditos are
128 marami axe
entering any dwelling against the will
of the owner so anka pareholang
article 280i number one entering
any dwelling against the will of the
owner pero mas brodba
ang 128 second and third axe
it is a second searching papers or
effects without the previous consent of
the owner
number three refusing to leave the
premises after having surreptitiously
entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same
coupo details article 280 which is
trespassed
entering the dwelling of another against
the latter's will peroditos
article 128 violation of domicile
merong3
acts una is entering any dwelling
against the will of the owner which is
similar to trespasser dwelling at
meropan additional
second and third acts so it's a
violation of domicile merong taplong axe
peroditiza tres paso dwelling
okay now let's proceed to questions
first question
because of the scorching heat of the sun
the policeman took shelter inside the
house of pedro pedro invited him inside
and offered him a cold beverage maria
the sexy daughter of pedro
gave the beverage to the policeman
pedro asked the policeman to leave
immediately
is the policeman liable under article
128 or
violation of domicile now let's look at
the acts punished under article 128
violation of the missile number one
entering and dwelling against the will
of the owner
pedro against the will of the owner
hinde in fact
beveridge number two searching papers or
effects
without the previous consent of the
owner nandun basi police paramount
searched on papers or effects
number three refusing to leave the
premises after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling
police pedro the answer is no
in fact
so in other words hindisha under any of
the acts punished
under violation of domicile so an answer
did is
the policeman is not liable under
article 128 next question a policeman
who
without a judicial order enters a
private house
over the owner's opposition is he guilty
of trespass to dwelling so in other
words
over the owner's opposition detoi
guilty by a policeman under trespass to
dwelling so anonymous
pastor dwelling cinema offender so on
offenders at trespasser dwelling i
the offender is a private person or a
private individual
a private individual the answer is no
unpolice i
a public officer so in other words malay
and crime the crime should be
violation of domicile at hindi trespass
dwelling
trespasser dwelling is committed by a
private
individual or a private person last
question
juan enters the dwelling of pedro
against the will of pedro what is the
criminal liability of
one so what is the crim what is the
crime committed when you enter the
dwelling of another
against the will of the owner so putting
violation of domicile under 128
feathering trespasser dwelling under
280.
the answer is if one is a public officer
then the crime committed is violation of
the missile under 128.
if juan is a private individual then his
criminal liability is that of
trespass to dwelling under article 280
okay so before we end this video let us
review what are
the distinctions between violation of
domicile and trespass to dwelling
violation of domicile is under crimes
against the fundamental law of the state
while trespassed to dwelling is under
crimes against personal liberty
and security second this is a violation
of domicile it is committed by
a public officer or employee while in
trespass to dwelling the offender here
is a private person or a private
individual
and then nyopina
and that is he entered the dwelling of
another against
the will of the owner so thank you very
much for watching study hard and pray
harder
thank you
Browse More Related Video
[Article 134] Rebellion or insurrection; Criminal Law Discussion
Brief Explanation of Economic and Financial Crime.
CSEC Principles of Business: Differentiate between Private and Public Sectors
Woman Turns a Trespass Warning into CRIMINAL Charges at Dodge Ram | Police Body Cam Captures Arrest
PROSPECTIVITY PRINCIPLE | CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW | 7-minute Explanation!!! Lecture Series
Part 1
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)