Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

ANGELICA ANGELES
Petitioner,

- versus - G.R. No. ____________

(CA-GR. CV 80083)

ATTY. BERNARD DIZON

AND ATTY. NEIL ARAULLO
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF

PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:

The Parties

1. Petitioner Angelica Angeles (Angelica) is the lessee-purchaser of

condominium Unit No. 123 in Asia Building, Makati City under the
Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase with the lessor-seller ABCD
Homes Condominiums (ABCD).

2. Respondents Atty. Bernard Dizon (Atty. Dizon) and Atty. Neil Araullo
(Atty. Araullo) are legal counsels of a real estate developer and the lessor-
seller of condominiums in Asia Building, Makati City.

Material Dates

3. On 18 December 2012, Angelica received a copy of the adverse decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV 80083 dated 12 December 2012, a
certified true copy of which is attached to the original of this petition as
Annex A. Consequently, Angelica had until 2 January 2012 within which to
file a petition for review of that decision.

4. Angelica is filing the petition within the period required by the Court.

Statement of the Matters Involved

5. Without court order, the respondents padlocked Unit No. 123 and
subsequently conducted an inventory of the items inside the unit which was
forcibly opened by a locksmith.
6. In acquitting the respondents in violation of Art. 280 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), the Court of Appeals ruled that:

One. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Unit No. 123 cannot be considered as a dwelling
within the purview of the law because Angelica does not habitually reside in
the said condominium unit.

Two. One of the elements of trespass to dwelling was not present

since there is no express prohibition on the part of Angelica against the entry
of the respondents.

The Facts and the Case

7. The facts of the case are undisputed. Angelica entered to a Contract of Lease
with Option to Purchase with ABCD.

8. Due to the alleged non-payment of Angelica to ABCD, ABCD’s counsel,

Atty. Dizon and Atty. Araullo arrived about 4p.m. of 27 June 2012 and
padlocked Unit No. 123. They arrived with persons from Barangay Security
Force of Barangay Rosario, Pasig City to witness the opening of the unit.
They conducted the inventory of items inside the unit which was forcibly
opened by a locksmith. These acts were done without notice and approval
from Angelica.

9. As a result, Angelica filed a criminal case against Atty. Dizon and Atty.
Dizon for violation of Art. 280 of the RPC. After trial, the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City rendered a decision, an authentic copy of which here
attached as Annex B, acquitting herein respondents of the said criminal
charges.

10. Angelica appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CV

80083. Angelica filed her appellant’s brief, a copy of which here attached as
Annex C.

11.On 12 December 2016 the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court, hence, this petition.

Reasons for Allowing the Petition

I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT THAT UNIT NO. 123 OCCUPIED BY
PETITIONER ANGELICA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A
DWELLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF LAW BECAUSE
 PETITIONER ANGELICA DOES NOT HABITUALLY RESIDE IN THE
SAID UNIT.

Petitioner contends and most respectfully submits that the decision rendered
by the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Most
Honorable Court in the long line of cases about the definition of dwelling under
Art. 280 of the RPC.

Dwelling place as used in the said article means any building or structure
exclusively devoted for rest and comfort, as distinguished from places devoted to
business, offices, etc. Whether a building is a dwelling house or not depends upon
the use to which it is put. Whether or not the occupant or owner thereof habitually
resides is not controlling.

Here, it is undisputed that Unit No. 123 was devoted by Angelica for rest
and comfort although she does not habitually reside in the said unit. Hence, Unit
No. 123 is considered as a dwelling under Art. 280 of the RPC.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DICRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT WHICH RULED THAT ONE OF THE
ELEMENTS OF THE TRESPASS TO DWELLING WAS NOT PRESENT
SINCE THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROHIBITION ON THE PART OF
PETITIONER ANGELICA AGAINST THE ENTRY OF THE
RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner contends and most respectfully submits that the decision rendered
by the Court of Appeals is in direct conflict with the decisions of the Most
Honorable Court in the long line of cases regarding the prohibition required under
Art. 280 of the RPC.

One of the elements of trespass to dwelling is that the entrance must be done
against the will of the occupant or the owner. The said element presupposes
prohibition from the occupant or owner thereof. The prohibition required under
Art. 280 of the RPC may either be expressed or implied.

Here, it is undisputed that before the respondents conducted an inventory of

items inside the unit, they employed the services of a locksmith to forcibly open
Unit No. 123. Needless to say, these acts were done without notice and approval
from Angelica. The fact that force was used to effect entry in the said unit implies
that Angelica did not desire anyone to enter without her consent. Hence, there is
implied prohibition under Art. 280 of the RPC.

Prayer
 WHEREFORE, petitioner Angelica Angeles respectfully prays the Court to
render judgment modifying the decision of the Court of Appeals on CA-GR. CV
80083 dated 12 December 2017; thus, to convict the respondents beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime trespass to dwelling punishable under Art. 280 of the
RPC. Further, the petitioner respectfully prays for the issuance of preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order enjoining respondents and ABCD
Homes Condominiums to padlock, open, and conduct other similar acts on Unit
No. 123 until the resolution of this case.

Petitioner prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the
circumstances.

[Explanation: A copy of this memorandum has been served on the adverse party by
registered mail in view of the distance and absence of a messenger who could
make a personal service.]

ENRIQUE ADOLFO C. SAN JUAN

Counsel for Petitioner Angelica Angeles
2nd Floor Sui Generis Building
143 Buendia Avenue
Makati City
Atty. Roll No. 100987
IBP 100897 10-08-22
PTR 100898 12-10-63
MCLE Compliance III-108
Email: emailstoenrique@gmail.com

Verification and Certification

I, Angelica Angeles, of legal age and resident of 123 Sky

Residences, Quezon City after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with the law do hereby depose and state that:
1. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
2. I have read and understood all the allegations in the aforesaid
complaint and I attest that the factual allegations therein are true
and correct based on my own knowledge;
3. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
tribunal or agency, and that, if I should learn thereafter that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before
 these courts of tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that the
fact to the Court within five (5) days

ANGELICA ANGELES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this --------------- in Makati

City. Affiant exhibited to me her LTO Driver’s License No. N08-2013-02-668,
expiring on January 1, 2015.

ALVIN REBISCO
Notary Public
Attorney’s Roll 45678
Appointment No. 678
Until December 31, 2016
PTR # 56789 1-12-13 Manila
IBP # 24680 1-12-13
MCLE Compliance III-3456
1234 Makati City
alvin@rebiscolaw.com