Title
Grana vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 202111
Decision Date
Nov 25, 2019
Petitioners destroyed Bolbes's property fence, claiming ownership; convicted of Malicious Mischief, penalty reduced to 30 days arresto menor, P7,500 damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127440)

Background and Proceedings

The complaint was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Parañaque City for malicious mischief and trespass. Bolbes alleged that petitioners and co-accused, upon the order of Teofilo and Olive Grana, entered and damaged his property without consent by destroying the iron fence, removing the cement foundation, and digging into the apartment’s foundation, risking the structure’s integrity. The accused pleaded not guilty (except for Ricky Dimaganti who remained at large), and the matter was unsuccessfully referred to mediation before trial.

Trial Court Findings (MeTC and RTC)

The MeTC found all accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of malicious mischief under Criminal Case No. 03-2756, and Teddy Grana and Gil Valdes guilty of other forms of trespass under Criminal Case No. 03-2757. The court held that the elements of malicious mischief—deliberate damage to property not constituting arson or other destruction crimes—were met. It rejected any justification by petitioners, stressing they acted out of spite and malice rather than rightful ownership claims. Sentences included imprisonment of four months and damages amounting to ₱7,500 plus attorney’s fees and other costs.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC’s rulings, emphasizing that even assuming disputed ownership, petitioners could not take the law into their own hands by damaging complainant’s improvements. The RTC highlighted the established conspiracy and rejected the defense’s claim that the acts were meant for protection or lacked malice.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted petitioners' appeal by affirming the malicious mischief conviction but acquitted Teddy Grana and Gil Valdes of other forms of trespass, citing failure of the prosecution to prove that the property was uninhabited at the time of entry—a necessary element for trespass. The CA emphasized that assumptions are insufficient as proof and that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proving this essential fact.

Petitioners’ Arguments in the Petition for Review

Petitioners Teddy and Teofilo Grana argued that not all elements of malicious mischief were established beyond reasonable doubt, denying bad faith or malice and asserting that their acts were not intended to cause damage but to remove an allegedly illegal fence constructed by Bolbes.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the petitioners’ claims essentially required a re-evaluation of factual findings and evidence—matters reserved for the trial courts, not the Court, absent manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. It underscored the finality and binding effect of the RTC and CA’s affirmed factual findings, given their opportunity to observe demeanor and credibility of witnesses.

Applying Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Court confirmed the following elements of malicious mischief were proven: (1) deliberate damage to another’s property, (2) the damage did not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction, and (3) the act was done maliciously and without legal justification. The Court found that the respondents unlawfully destroyed Bolbes’s property improvements not for rightful ownership defense but maliciously to vent anger and revenge.

Penalty Modification Under Republic Act No. 10951

The Court modified the original penalty of four months imprisonment, reducing it to arresto menor (imprisonment of one to thirty days) with reference to Republic Act No. 10951, wh

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.