Practice question
A passerby enters a dwelling against the occupant's expressed will solely to prevent a serious and immediate fire injury to a child inside. The facts establish Article 280's serious-harm-prevention exception, and no separate unlawful conduct is involved. Must the entry nevertheless be punished as qualified trespass merely because consent was refused?
- Yes, the article contains no exceptions.
- Yes, every against-will entry is punishable regardless of statutory text.
- No; Article 280 expressly excludes an entry for the specified purpose of preventing serious harm.
- No, because every passerby owns a right to enter any home.
- Yes, unless the passerby is related to the child.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 268–269, 280 and 282.
- RA 7659, Sections 6–9, amended murder, infanticide, kidnapping and robbery provisions, subject to RA 9346 death-penalty prohibition: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1993/ra_7659_1993.html; Section 8 amending Article 267.
- RA 10951, current amended RPC provisions and monetary thresholds: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html; amended Articles 268–269, 280, 282 and 286–287.
- RA 9346, Sections 1–4, death-penalty prohibition, substitute penalties and clemency: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9346_2006.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.