Short answer. Under Article 268, yes. The article says in terms that the same penalty is incurred by anyone who furnishes the place for the perpetration of the crime. Providing the premises is treated as the offence itself, not as a lesser form of participation in someone else's act.
What the law says
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
Revised Penal Code, Article 268 — Slight Illegal Detention. Read the full provision →
The article puts the provider of the place on the same footing
One short sentence does it: the same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime. The drafters could have treated this as a species of secondary participation, carrying something less than the penalty for the detention itself. They did not. The words the same penalty place the person who supplied the premises alongside those who did the taking, which is why "I never touched him and I was not even there" does not, on its own, answer a charge framed under this part of the article.
"For the perpetration of the crime" is the limiting phrase
The article does not reach every owner whose property was used. What it describes is furnishing the place for the perpetration of the crime — a purpose, not an accident. A house entered without the owner's knowledge, or lent for an ordinary reason and then put to a use the owner knew nothing of, is not the situation the sentence describes. So the real question in a case like this is almost never whether the premises were yours. It is what you knew, and what you understood the place was being taken for.
Knowledge is proved from conduct, not from denial
Because the issue is what you understood at the time, it will be examined through what you did — the arrangements made, what was said in messages, whether you were paid, whether you attended, what you did when you learned. People who genuinely did not know often behave in ways that show it, and that behaviour is evidence. Equally, an account that does not fit the surrounding conduct will be tested against it. This is the part of a case of this kind that is decided on the record rather than on assertion, in either direction.
What to do before you explain yourself
Do not give an informal account to anyone before speaking to a lawyer, however strongly you feel the misunderstanding could be cleared up in a sentence. Instead, gather what shows the basis on which the place changed hands: the lease or the message thread, any payment record, and the dates. Note who approached you and what was said. If you learned something during the period and acted on it, that sequence matters. Take all of it to counsel together, because the answer to this charge lies in the surrounding record.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 268 — Slight Illegal Detention
- Revised Penal Code, Article 269 — Unlawful Arrest