Title
Supreme Court
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 152997
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2004
Lessee Albano accused Marzalado, Jr. of trespass and theft after her unit was entered and belongings removed. Supreme Court acquitted, citing justified entry to prevent flooding and lack of criminal intent.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152997)

Key Dates

• February 1993 – Ejectment case filed by Luz Marzalado against Albano.
• September 1993 – Electricity supply to the unit cut off.
• November 1–3, 1993 – Occurrences of alleged removal of fixtures and changed padlock.
• March 16, 1994 – Information for qualified trespass filed.
• May 12, 1994 – Arraignment; petitioner pleaded not guilty.
• October 28, 1997 – MeTC conviction for Qualified Trespass to Dwelling.
• November 5, 1998 – RTC affirmed MeTC decision.
• November 9, 2001 – CA affirmed RTC decision.
• April 23, 2002 – CA denied motion for reconsideration.
• November 10, 2004 – SC promulgated decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (decision after 1990)
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 280 (Qualified Trespass to Dwelling)
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 11(4) (Justifying Circumstance: avoidance of greater harm)
• Rule 110, Sec. 11, Rules of Court (Date of commission of offense)

Procedural History

  1. Metropolitan Trial Court convicted petitioner of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling (Art. 280 RPC) with penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor and ₱500 fine.
  2. RTC of Quezon City affirmed the MeTC decision.
  3. Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s certiorari petition and motion for reconsideration.
  4. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the entry of petitioner into Albano’s leased unit was a criminal trespass or a justifiable act under Art. 11(4) of the RPC to prevent greater harm to property.

Antecedent Facts

• Albano vacated the unit after disconnection of electricity, leaving only a maid occasionally.
• November 2, 1993: Albano discovered her lead pipe missing; padlock changed November 3.
• Barangay report: Petitioner and companion removed fixtures and personal belongings and locked the unit from inside.
• Petitioner’s version: He found water flooding from an open faucet, enlisted barangay tanods, and entered to turn off the faucet to prevent damage.

Evidence Presented

Prosecution
– Witness Narciso Raniedo testified seeing petitioner remove Albano’s pipe and belongings on November 1–2, 1993.
– Complaint and barangay certification of forced entry.

Defense
– Petitioner testified the unit was vacant, flooding posed imminent damage, and entry was with barangay officers to avert harm.
– No proof of violent or intimidating conduct beyond that necessary to gain entry.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Information’s Date Variance
    – Date of offense is not an essential element of trespass; variance between the date in the Information and evidence does not render the Information defective (Rule 110, Sec. 11).

  2. Elements of Trespass to Dwelling (Art. 280 RPC)
    – Private person entering another’s dwelling against the will of occupant.
    – Prosecution must prove criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt.

  3. Justifying Circumstance (Art. 11(4) RPC)
    – Act done to avoid an imminent and greater injury satisfies three requisites: (a) actual existence of evil; (b) feared injury greater than harm caused; (c) no less harmful means available.
    – Petitioner’s entry was to prevent continued flooding and dam

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.