Infringement Of Other People’s Residence – A Serious Violation In A Rule-Of-Law Society

1. The Inviolability of Residence – A Foundation of Human Rights

Article 22 of the 2013 Constitution clearly states: "Citizens have the right to a legal residence. Everyone has the right to the inviolability of their residence. No one may enter another person's residence without their consent." This is a fundamental right tied to privacy, personal safety, and family stability.

This right is not only legal but also reflects social moral standards. Unauthorized entry or occupation of another's home violates the law and seriously breaches private life, causing psychological insecurity for the victims.

2. The Crime of "Infringement of Residence" under the Penal Code

Article 158 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) defines the crime of infringing upon another person's residence as follows:

"Any person who commits one of the following acts... shall be subject to a penalty of up to 02 years of non-custodial reform or between 03 months and 02 years of imprisonment:

a) Illegally searching another person's residence;

b) Illegally expelling another person from their residence;

c) Illegally occupying a residence or obstructing a legal resident from using their residence."

Thus, the act of "occupying another's residence"—as seen in the aforementioned case—is a constitutive element of this crime. If aggravating circumstances are present (e.g., organized crime, abuse of position, causing negative impacts on security), the penalty can increase up to 05 years of imprisonment.

3. Case Analysis in Da Nang – Notable Legal Signs

The detention of both Mr. Ho Van D and his wife suggests signs of joint liability (accomplices). This could lead to the application of aggravating factors such as "organized crime" or "close collusion," increasing the severity of the case.

In many practical scenarios, these actions stem from civil disputes (land, inheritance, etc.). However, even in a dispute, parties must resolve issues through competent authorities (Courts, Civil Judgment Enforcement). Using force or illegal measures to occupy property shifts a civil relationship into a criminal one.

4. The Boundary Between Civil Disputes and Criminal Offenses

A common misconception is that during a title dispute, one can "temporarily occupy" the property to secure it. This is legally incorrect.

• Civil Path: Requesting Court resolution or applying for "provisional urgent measures."

• Criminal Path: Arbitrarily using illegal acts to occupy a residence.

The boundary is clear: Lawful legal channels lead to civil relations; arbitrary illegal occupation leads to criminal liability.

5. Legal and Social Consequences

Beyond material damage, this crime causes severe mental distress. Being expelled from one's home is a major shock that leads to life instability and potential further legal violations. Legally, the offender may face criminal penalties and must compensate for damages, including property loss, alternative rental costs, and spiritual distress.

6. Legal Recommendations and Lessons Learned

• Raise Legal Awareness: Citizens must understand ownership and residential rights. Do not let personal conflicts lead to criminal acts.

• Choose Official Legal Routes: Lawsuits or administrative requests are the only ways to guarantee rights and avoid legal risks.

• Stricter Enforcement: Authorities must increase legal dissemination and strictly punish violations for general deterrence.

7. Conclusion

The right to the inviolability of residence is a cornerstone of human rights. The case in Da Nang serves as a stark reminder: in a society governed by the rule of law, crossing legal boundaries carries a heavy price. Respecting the rights of others is both a legal obligation and a necessary standard for maintaining social order and justice.