That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. (Art. 14, par. 18, RPC)


When is there an unlawful entry?

●There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for that purpose. (Art. 14, par. 18, RPC)


Reason for the rule:

On who acts without respect to walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for personal safety, shows a greater perversity and audacity. Hence, the law punishes him with more severity


Note:

● Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.

● Entering through the window is unlawful entry. The unlawful entrance must be made for the purpose of committing a crime like rape or murder.

● It must be alleged in the information to qualify the crime to robbery; otherwise, the crime will be theft.


When is unlawful entry inherent in the crime?

● Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of (1) Trespass to dwelling and (2) Robbery with force upon things.

● Unlawful entry is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, unlawful entry being not inherent in that kind of particular robbery.


Unlawful entry vs. breaking of wall or door

● Entering through the window is unlawful entry. But there is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.

● Unlawful entry" exists only when entrance into a building is made by a way not for the purpose of entry.

Accordingly, the crime committed by the accused-appellants for the killing of Barbara Lucinario is simple Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of: (1) Dwelling since the crime was committed inside the residence of said deceased; (2) Breaking a wall or door to gain entry (Art. 14, No. 19, Revised Penal Code), instead of unlawful entry, as erroneously found by the trial court, since the accused-appellants rammed the door off its hinges in order to gain entry, whereas "unlawful entry" exists only when entrance into a building is made by a way not for the purpose of entry; (3) Abuse of superior strength, since there were four (4) armed men pitted against one unarmed woman; and (4) Disregard of sex, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same. (People vs. Lamosa, G.R. Nos. 74291-93. May 23, 1989)