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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 202111)

Factual Background

Freddie Bolbes filed Information for malicious mischief in Crim. Case No. 03-2756 against Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, Ricky Dimaganti, Olive Grana and Teofilo Grana, and a separate Information for Other Forms of Trespass in Crim. Case No. 03-2757 against Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes and Ricky Dimaganti. Bolbes testified that he occupied the subject lot since 1989 and purchased it from the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) under a Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002 for P554,400.00. Bolbes declared in his sinumpaang salaysay that on July 6, 2003 petitioners and co-accused, at the direction of Teofilo Grana and Olive Grana and without his consent, entered the property, destroyed an iron fence, removed a cement foundation and made diggings that exposed his apartment to danger; the intruders left only upon the arrival of barangay tanods. Ricky Dimaganti remained at large.

Proceedings in the MeTC

The MeTC, after trial, found Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, Olive Grana and Teofilo Grana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malicious Mischief in Crim. Case No. 03-2756, and found Teddy Grana and Gil Valdes guilty of Other Forms of Trespass in Crim. Case No. 03-2757. The MeTC imposed a straight penalty of four months imprisonment and ordered payment of P7,500.00 actual damages, P10,000.00 attorney’s fees, P1,500.00 per court appearance, P1,000.00 incidental expenses and costs in the malicious mischief case; in the trespass case it imposed a fine of P200.00 each with subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency. The MeTC ordered archival and issuance of an alias warrant for Ricky Dimaganti.

RTC Review and Rationale

On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC’s findings in toto. The RTC emphasized that petitioners’ own kontra salaysay admitted that Teofilo Grana made diggings, removed the fence and destroyed cement improvements. The RTC found that the acts did not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction, and that even assuming disputed ownership the accused were not justified in summarily demolishing fenced improvements. The RTC concluded that the acts were not undertaken to protect a legal right but rather to vent anger, and that conspiracy was established by petitioners’ admissions in their terus kontra salaysay.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA granted the appeal in part. It affirmed the conviction of Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, Olive Grana and Teofilo Grana for malicious mischief but reversed and set aside the convictions of Teddy Grana and Gil Valdes for other forms of trespass and entered judgment of acquittal as to those trespass counts. The CA held that the prosecution failed to prove the element that the place was uninhabited at the time of entry, an element essential to the trespass offense, and that the RTC’s conclusion on that element rested on assumptions rather than proof.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

In their Petition for Review on Certiorari, Teddy Grana and Teofilo Grana limited their assignments of error to three points: (1) that not all the elements of the crime of malicious mischief were proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) that they were not motivated by hatred, revenge or evil motive when they removed the fence; and (3) that they did not act maliciously when they removed the fence built by Bolbes.

Petitioners’ Principal Contentions

Petitioners contended that the factual findings did not establish the statutory elements of Malicious Mischief and that their actions were justifiable or lacked malicious intent because they sought to protect their asserted property rights and because ownership of the lot was disputed. Petitioners argued that the removal of the fence was not done with hatred, revenge or evil motive.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Scope and Standard

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court observed that the issues raised required re-evaluation of factual and evidentiary matters, which the Court would not undertake on certiorari absent a showing that the factual findings were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion or contrary to the findings of the court of origin. The Court relied on the settled principle that the MeTC and RTC had had the opportunity to observe witnesses and assess credibility, and that their findings, affirmed by the CA, merited conclusive effect unless extraordinary circumstances justified departure. The Court cited Roque v. People in support of this standard.

Supreme Court’s Application of the Law to Facts

The Court found that the elements of Article 327 were established. It noted the statutory statement of Article 327 and observed that petitioners admitted in their kontra salaysay that Teofilo Grana deliberately destroyed the fence and foundation and made diggings; the acts did not amount to arson or other destruction offenses; and the damage was committed for the sake of causing damage. The Court held that petitioners unlawfully took the law into their own hands, surreptitiously entered an enclosed lot and damaged another’s property, and that the acts evidenced hatred, revenge or evil motive rather than a bona fide exercise of ownership rights.

Modification of Penalty under R.A. 10951 and Effect on Co-accused

The Court applied Republic Act No. 10951, specifically Section 88, which amended the penalty scheme under Article 329, and determined that the monetary value of the damage was P7,500.00. Under the amended scale the appropriate penalty was arresto menor or a fine not less than the value of the damage and not more than P40,000.00. The Court therefore reduced the prior four-month straight imprisonment to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 202111)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Teddy Grana and Teofilo Grana filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 34194.
The People of the Philippines was the respondent in the criminal prosecutions for Malicious Mischief and Other Forms of Trespass.
The prosecutions originated in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 77, Paranaque City, with appeals to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 195, Paranaque City, and further appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Supreme Court docketed the petition and resolved the appeal by denying the petition and affirming the CA decision with modification of penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

Freddie Bolbes claimed ownership of the parcel by purchase from the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002, and alleged occupation since 1989.
Bolbes alleged that on July 6, 2003, Teddy, Gil Valdes, and Ricky Dimaganti, at the order of Teofilo and Olive Grana, forcibly entered the subject property, destroyed an iron fence, removed cement foundation, and excavated until a portion of his apartment foundation was exposed.
A barangay blotter entry and barangay tanod testimony recorded Bolbes’s complaint and efforts to stop the intruders.
Teofilo admitted making diggings and removing a fence but claimed a prior purchase from Clarito Baldeo and asserted that his acts were to construct a perimeter fence and to protect alleged ownership rights.

Lower Court Findings

The MeTC convicted Teddy, Gil, Olive, and Teofilo of Malicious Mischief and convicted Teddy and Gil of Other Forms of Trespass in separate cases, ordering imprisonment and damages.
The RTC affirmed the MeTC convictions in toto, finding the elements of Malicious Mischief and Other Forms of Trespass proven and stressing unlawful self-help and malicious motive.
The CA partly granted relief by affirming the Malicious Mischief convictions but reversing and acquitting Teddy and Gil of Other Forms of Trespass for lack of proof that the place was uninhabited at the time of entry.

Issues Presented

Whether the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether petitioners acted out of hatred, revenge, or evil motive when they removed the fence constructed by the private complainant.
Whether petitioners acted maliciously in removing the fence and destroying improvements on the disputed property.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners argued that not all elements of Malicious Mischief were established and denied malicious motive, asserting purported ownership and justification for their acts.
The prosecution relied on admissions in petitioners’ kontra salaysay, the barangay record, and Bolbes’s documentary evidence of purchase and occupancy to prove unlawful and malicious destruction of complainant’s property.
The CA contended that the prosecution failed to prove the specific element of uninhabited premise for Other Forms of Trespass, warranting acquittal on that count for Tedd