Case Summary (G.R. No. 78742)
Applicable Law and Procedural Framework
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution. Penal provisions: Revised Penal Code, Art. 327 (Malicious Mischief) and Art. 329 (Other Mischiefs), as amended by Republic Act No. 10951. Procedural rule cited: Section 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court (effect of partial appeals by co-accused). Standard of appellate review: appellate courts accord respect to trial court findings of fact and will not disturb them absent extraordinary circumstances (mistake, absurdity, speculation, conflict, grave abuse of discretion).
Key Dates and Documents (procedural markers)
Informations were filed in MeTC, Branch 77, Parañaque City, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 03-2756 (malicious mischief) and 03-2757 (other forms of trespass). Trial courts rendered decisions at MeTC (Joint Decision), affirmed by RTC on appeal, partly reversed by the Court of Appeals; petition for review was filed in the Supreme Court. Documentary evidence relied on by complainant included a Contract to Sell (Feb. 28, 2002) and related HIGC documents and receipts.
Factual Allegations by the Prosecution
Complainant Bolbes alleged he purchased and occupied the subject property (occupancy since 1989; Contract to Sell for P554,400 dated February 28, 2002). On July 6, 2003, petitioners Teddy, Gil and Ricky, purportedly at the direction of Teofilo and Olive and without Bolbes’s consent, entered the property, destroyed an iron fence, removed cement foundation and dug until part of Bolbes’s apartment foundation was exposed, thereby endangering the apartment. Petition (barangay) complaint was recorded and barangay tanod intervened to stop the acts.
Defense Account
Only Teofilo testified at trial. He claimed ownership based on a chain of transactions (purchase from Clarito Baldeo, who bought from Alexandra Bernabe, evidenced by a contract of lease with option to purchase). Teofilo admitted making diggings to construct a perimeter fence for mutual protection but asserted Bolbes stopped him and that the improvements by Bolbes had been made without his consent. He said he referred the matter to the barangay and later was summoned by the court.
MeTC Findings and Verdicts
The Metropolitan Trial Court found Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teofilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malicious Mischief (Crim. Case No. 03-2756) and found Teddy and Gil guilty of Other Forms of Trespass (Crim. Case No. 03-2757). The MeTC concluded all elements of the charged offenses were present and imposed imprisonment and monetary damages and costs against the convicted accused; the case against Ricky was ordered archived pending his apprehension.
RTC Review and Rationale on Appeal
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 195) affirmed the MeTC’s findings in toto for malicious mischief, reasoning: (1) petitioners’ own "pinagsamang kontra salaysay" admitted Teofilo removed the fence, destroyed cement and made diggings; (2) the acts did not amount to arson or other destruction crimes; and (3) even if ownership was disputed, Teofilo was not justified in resorting to extra-judicial destruction of improvements allegedly put up by Bolbes. The RTC treated the acts as motivated by anger and vindictiveness rather than legitimate protection of property rights, and it found conspiracy from petitioners’ statements. As to trespass, the RTC found Bolbes’s documentary evidence more credible than petitioners’ receipts and rejected claimed ownership by petitioners.
Court of Appeals Disposition
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for Malicious Mischief against Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teofilo but reversed and set aside the convictions for Other Forms of Trespass against Teddy and Gil, instead acquitting them of that charge. The CA held that the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the trespass offense — that the entrance was made while the place was uninhabited — and that the RTC’s finding on that element was based on assumptions rather than proof.
Issues Raised in the Petition for Review
Petitioners Teddy and Teofilo contended (1) that not all elements of malicious mischief were proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) they were not driven by hatred, revenge or evil motive when they removed the fence; and (3) they did not act maliciously in removing Bolbes’s fence. Gil and Olive did not pursue a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Scope of Review and Evidentiary Assessment
The Supreme Court emphasized the limited scope of review in a petition for review on certiorari — it is restricted to legal questions and does not supplant the fact-finding role of trial courts. The Court noted the appellate and trial courts had the opportunity to observe witnesses and assess credibility; their concurrent findings of fact deserve high respect and are binding unless shown to be gravely or judicially infirm. The petitioners did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting departure from the courts’ factual conclusions.
Elements of Malicious Mischief and Their Application
Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code defines malicious mischief. The Court found the elements proved: (a) deliberate damage to another’s property (petitioners admitted destruction/removal of fence and diggings); (b) the destruction did not fall under arson or other des
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 78742)
Procedural Posture and Case Identification
- Supreme Court decision recorded at 866 Phil. 520, Second Division, G.R. No. 202111, dated November 25, 2019, authored by Justice Hernando.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari assails: (a) February 21, 2012 Decision and (b) June 6, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34194.
- These CA rulings partially reversed the May 16, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 195, ParaAaque City, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-0980 and 10-0981.
- The RTC had affirmed in toto the August 10, 2010 Joint Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 77, ParaAaque City in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-2756 and 03-2757.
- Petitioners before the Supreme Court: Teddy Grana and Teofilo Grana; co-accused in the underlying proceedings included Gil Valdes (also spelled "Valdez" in parts of the record), Olive Grana, and Ricky Dimaganti.
- Petitioners filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration at the CA which was denied; the present petition is by Teddy and Teofilo only — Gil and Olive did not appeal to the Supreme Court.
Parties and Criminal Docketing
- Complainant: Freddie Bolbes (hereafter "Bolbes").
- Accused in Crim. Case No. 03-2756 (Malicious Mischief): Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, Ricky Dimaganti, Olive Grana, and Teofilo Grana.
- Accused in Crim. Case No. 03-2757 (Other Forms of Trespass to Dwelling): Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, and Ricky Dimaganti.
- Ricky Dimaganti remained at large; the MeTC ordered the case against him sent to the archives and an Alias Warrant of Arrest issued.
- The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Office prior to trial, but the parties failed to amicably settle.
Factual Background (as presented in the record)
- Neighbors: Complainant Bolbes and the five accused were neighbors at Bernabe Subdivision, ParaAaque City.
- Bolbes’ claimed title interest: He claimed to have purchased the subject property from Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) for P554,400.00 payable in installments, evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002; he began occupying the property in 1989, prior to his application with HIGC.
- Incident: On July 6, 2003, according to Bolbes’ Sinumpaang Salaysay, Teddy, Gil and Ricky, upon order of Teofilo and Olive and without Bolbes’s consent, entered the subject property; they destroyed the iron fence, removed the cement foundation, and made diggings that reached a portion of the apartment foundation, thereby exposing Bolbes’ apartment to danger in case of heavy rains.
- Stopping of acts: Teddy and Gil stopped when Barangay Tanods arrived in the vicinity.
- Barangay action: Bolbes filed a complaint at the barangay on July 7, 2003, entered under barangay blotter entry no. 295; Barangay Tanod Andres Bonifacio testified about attempts to persuade petitioners and co-accused to stop their acts.
- Teofilo’s account: Teofilo testified he bought the property from Clarito Baldeo (who bought from Alexandra Bernabe) evidenced by a contract of lease with option to purchase; he admitted to digging part of the lot to construct a perimeter fence for mutual protection but said Bolbes stopped the work and the matter was referred to barangay settlement; he contended he destroyed fence and made diggings because Bolbes built them without his consent and because he claimed ownership.
Prosecution Evidence and Testimony
- Bolbes testified on the stand, identified and confirmed the truthfulness of his Sinumpaang Salaysay which recounted the July 6, 2003 incident.
- Sinumpaang Salaysay allegations: Entry and destructive acts by Teddy, Gil and Ricky upon orders from Teofilo and Olive; destruction of fence and removal of cement foundation; diggings reaching apartment foundation; danger to apartment during heavy rains.
- Barangay Tanod Andres Bonifacio’s testimony corroborated the barangay complaint filing and attempts to stop the accused.
Defense Evidence and Testimony
- Only Teofilo testified for the defense at trial.
- Teofilo’s testimony: Claimed purchase chain of title (Clarito Baldeo ← Alexandra Bernabe), asserted intent to construct perimeter fence for protection, alleged Bolbes stopped him and agreed to barangay settlement, denied malicious motive and asserted ownership and cause for removing the fence built by Bolbes without consent.
MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Court) Joint Decision (August 10, 2010)
- MeTC found all accused in Crim. Case No. 03-2756 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Malicious Mischief.
- MeTC found Teddy and Gil guilty of Other Forms of Trespass in Crim. Case No. 03-2757.
- MeTC’s dispositive orders (summarized from record):
- Criminal Case No. 03-2756: Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teofilo convicted of Malicious Mischief; each sentenced to straight imprisonment of four (4) months and ordered to pay complainant P7,500.00 as actual damages, P10,000.00 as attorney's fees plus P1,500.00 for each appearance in court, P1,000.00 as incidental expenses, and costs.
- Criminal Case No. 03-2757: Teddy and Gil convicted of Other Forms of Trespass and sentenced to a fine of P200.00 each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Orders regarding Ricky Dimaganti: case sent to archives; Alias Warrant of Arrest to be issued.
RTC (Regional Trial Court) Appeal Ruling (May 16, 2011)
- RTC affirmed in toto the MeTC findings and convictions for Malicious Mischief (Crim. Case No. 03-2756) and for Other Forms of Trespass (Crim. Case No. 03-2757) as to the convicted persons.
- RTC rationale on Malicious Mischief:
- Found all statutory elements present: admissions in pinagsamang kontra salaysay that Teofilo made diggings, removed fence and destroyed cement foundation; destruction did not amount to arson; acts were not done to protect a right but to give vent to