G.R. No. 202111 - Grana vs. People

Complainant Freddie Bolbes filed two separate criminal cases before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 77, Parañaque City: one for malicious mischief (Crim. Case No. 03-2756) against Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, Ricky Dimaganti, Olive Grana, and Teofilo Grana; and another for Other Forms of Trespass (Crim. Case No. 03-2757) against Teddy, Gil, and Ricky.
All accused pleaded not guilty except Ricky Dimaganti who remained at large. The Philippine Mediation Office attempted to settle the dispute amicably but failed.

Bolbes claimed to have purchased the subject property from the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) for ₱554,400.00 via a Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002, and had been occupying the property since 1989.
Bolbes testified that on July 6, 2003, Teddy, Gil, and Ricky, under orders from Teofilo and Olive and without his consent, entered the property, destroyed an iron fence, removed its cement foundation, and dug parts of it, exposing his apartment to potential damage. The acts only ceased when Barangay Tanods arrived.

Barangay Tanod Andres Bonifacio corroborated Bolbes’ complaint and efforts to halt the accused’s actions, noting the complaint was logged in the barangay blotter.
Teofilo, for the defense, claimed ownership through a contract of lease with option to purchase from Clarito Baldeo, who got it from Alexandra Bernabe. He admitted to digging for fence construction for mutual protection, which was stopped by Bolbes. He asserted his acts were to protect his ownership rights and that Bolbes constructed illegal fences without his consent.

The MeTC found all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malicious mischief and convicted Teddy and Gil of Other Forms of Trespass, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines, and ordering them to pay actual damages and attorney's fees.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, affirmed the MeTC’s decision in toto, emphasizing that destruction of property was deliberate and done not to protect rights but to vent anger. The RTC found the accused’s claim of ownership insufficient to justify damaging the complainant’s improvements.

The CA partially granted the accused’s appeal by affirming the malicious mischief conviction but reversed the trespass conviction of Teddy and Gil.
The CA reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove that the property was uninhabited at the time of entry, an essential element of the crime of Other Forms of Trespass.

Teddy and Teofilo (petitioners) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising errors on the evidentiary sufficiency and the presence of malice in destroying the fence.
Gil and Olive did not appeal, but the petitioners argued for their benefit based on the eventual penalties.

Whether the elements of malicious mischief were sufficiently proven against the petitioners.
Whether the petitioners acted out of hatred, revenge, or evil motive in removing the fence built by Bolbes thus fulfilling the mens rea element of malicious mischief.
Whether the petitioners were justified in removing the fence and cement foundation allegedly constructed illegally by Bolbes on the disputed property.
Regarding the crime of Other Forms of Trespass, whether the prosecution established that the property was uninhabited at the time of entry.
Whether the penalties imposed for malicious mischief require modification under Republic Act No. 10951.