Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Geroche vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Ellah Gaudicos
    Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil entered Baleriano Limbag's house without a warrant, searched for firearms, and took Limbag's airgun, injuring him. They were charged with violation of domicile and physical injury. The trial court acquitted them of violation of domicile for failing to prove they were public officers, but found them guilty of physical injury. The appellate court then found them guilty of violation of domicile based on their admissions that Geroche was a barangay captain and Garde and Marfil were CAFGU members, making them public officers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Geroche vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Ellah Gaudicos
    91 views1 page
    Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil entered Baleriano Limbag's house without a warrant, searched for firearms, and took Limbag's airgun, injuring him. They were charged with violation of domicile and physical injury. The trial court acquitted them of violation of domicile for failing to prove they were public officers, but found them guilty of physical injury. The appellate court then found them guilty of violation of domicile based on their admissions that Geroche was a barangay captain and Garde and Marfil were CAFGU members, making them public officers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

    Original Title

    Geroche vs. People.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil entered Baleriano Limbag's house without a warrant, searched for firearms, and took Limbag's airgun, injuring him. They were charged with violation of domicile and physical injury. The trial court acquitted them of violation of domicile for failing to prove they were public officers, but found them guilty of physical injury. The appellate court then found them guilty of violation of domicile based on their admissions that Geroche was a barangay captain and Garde and Marfil were CAFGU members, making them public officers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views1 page

    Geroche vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Ellah Gaudicos
    Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and Generoso Marfil entered Baleriano Limbag's house without a warrant, searched for firearms, and took Limbag's airgun, injuring him. They were charged with violation of domicile and physical injury. The trial court acquitted them of violation of domicile for failing to prove they were public officers, but found them guilty of physical injury. The appellate court then found them guilty of violation of domicile based on their admissions that Geroche was a barangay captain and Garde and Marfil were CAFGU members, making them public officers. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Geroche vs.

    People, 742 SCRA 514, November 26, 2014

    FACTS:

    On the evening of May 14, 1989, Baleriano Limbag awoke when Edigardo Geroche, Roberto Garde, and
    Generoso Marfil suddenly entered into his house and, without a search warrant, began scouring the place
    for firearms, but instead took away his airgun. Limbag also sustained injuries as a result of the raid.

    Geroche, Garde, and Marfil were all charged with the crime of Violation of Domicile, under Art. 128 of
    RPC and Less Serious Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the RPC.

    The RTC found the above-mentioned accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Less Serious Physical
    Injurie, but acquitted them of the crime of Violation of Domicile because, according to the trial court, the
    prosecution failed to prove that petitioners were public officers, which is an essential element of the
    crime.

    The petitioners then appealed their case to the CA, praying that the decision of the lower court be
    reversed. The CA, however, ruled that the petitioners should not be convicted of the crime of Less Serious
    Physical Injuries but, rather, Violation of Domicile, considering their judicial admissions that they were
    the barangay captain (Geroche) and part of the CAFGU (Garde and Marfil).

    ISSUES:

    (1) What is the crime committed?

    (2) Whether the accused are criminally liable

    HELD:

    (1) The crime committed is Violation of Domicile under Art. 128 of the RPC. Violation of Domicile
    is committed by any public officer or employee, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter
    any dwellings against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found therein
    without the previous consent of such owner, or having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and
    being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.

    (2) YES, the petitioners are guilty of Violation of Domicile. One of the essential elements of the
    crime of Violation of Domicile is that the accused be a public officer or employee. In the present
    case, the Court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA. In their testimonies
    and pleadings, Geroche did not deny that he was the barangay captain. Likewise, Garde and
    Marfil did not refute the fact that they were CAFGU members. By virtue of their positions, they
    are considered to be public officers or employees. Hence, they can be found guilty of Violation of
    Domicile, as all the elements for the crime are met.

    You might also like