G.R. No. 152997 - Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152997)

Factual Background

Cristina N. Albano leased a unit in a house owned by Luz Marzalado, mother of petitioner. Luz filed an ejectment action against Albano and obtained judgment ordering Albano to vacate and pay arrears, and Albano appealed to the RTC. In September 1993 the electricity to the unit was disconnected for nonpayment. Albano moved her children to her father’s house and left a maid to sleep occasionally in the unit. Albano asserted that on November 2, 1993 she noticed a missing lead pipe used for drying clothes and that on November 3, 1993 she found the main door padlocked and could no longer enter. On November 4, 1993 Albano peered through the jalousies and saw the unit empty. Barangay officials advised her to go to the police, and she later filed criminal charges for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling and theft against petitioner.

Events as Witnessed by Neighbors and Barangay

Narciso Raniedo, the owner of the house fronting Albano’s unit, testified that on November 1, 1993 at about 5:00 p.m. he saw petitioner take a lead pipe and hand it to a woman at petitioner’s terrace. Raniedo further testified that on November 2, 1993 between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. he heard noises at Albano’s apartment, saw petitioner forcibly open the door, remove Albano’s belongings and bring them to petitioner’s house. The barangay issued a certificate indicating that petitioner entered the unit to address a strong stream of water flooding the premises and that the owner forcibly opened the unit for that reason.

Accused’s Explanation and Defense

Petitioner denied criminal intent and testified that he entered the unit on November 3, 1993 with two barangay tanods and the barangay secretary after discovering continuous water flowing from an open faucet and in order to prevent further flooding of his mother’s property. He claimed that Albano had effectively vacated the unit when electricity was cut off and that his entry was remedial, not felonious. Petitioner asserted that the Information’s allegation of November 2, 1993 as the date of entry was incorrect and that the entry on November 3, 1993 was justified under Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Information, Arraignment and Trial

An Information for trespass to dwelling alleging commission on November 2, 1993 was filed and signed March 16, 1994. Petitioner was arraigned on May 12, 1994 and pleaded not guilty. The case proceeded by summary hearing. The prosecution presented testimony of Albano and Raniedo. The defense presented petitioner’s testimony and the barangay certification. No other eyewitness corroborated Raniedo’s account of the November 2 events.

MeTC Judgment

On October 28, 1997 the MeTC convicted petitioner of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Art. 280 of the Revised Penal Code. The court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, to pay a fine of P500.00, and to pay the costs. The MeTC reasoned that petitioner’s alleged explanation of entering on November 3 would have been a better defense if the Information had alleged that date, and it found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish guilt.

RTC and Court of Appeals Decisions

Petitioner appealed to the RTC, which on review affirmed the MeTC decision in toto, finding no reversible error. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22645. The Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the lower courts’ factual findings and conviction by decision dated November 9, 2001, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution dated April 23, 2002.

Issue on Review

The single, controlling issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining petitioner’s conviction for qualified trespass to dwelling.

Parties’ Contentions before the Supreme Court

Petitioner contended that the entry was legally justified under paragraph four of Art. 11 as an act to avoid imminent injury to property, that he acted with barangay officers for the remedial purpose of stopping flooding, and that the Information’s date of November 2, 1993 rendered the charge defective because his entry occurred on November 3, 1993. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the flooding did not constitute danger to life or property sufficient to justify forcible entry, that petitioner could have shut the inlet valve rather than enter, and that any variance between the date in the Information and the date shown by evidence did not vitiate the Information because time was not an essential element of the offense.

Legal Standards Applied

The Court reviewed the elements of trespass to dwelling and the rules governing the sufficiency of an Information. It noted that in trespass the elements are that the offender is a private person, that he enters the dwelling of another, and that the entrance is against the latter’s will. The Court applied Rule 110, Sec. 11, Rules of Court, which permits alleging the date as near as possible to the actual date when time is not a material ingredient. The Court reiterated that criminal convictions must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt and that where an act permits two possible significations, one culpable and another innocent, ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Evidence and Justification

The Court acknowledged discrepancies in the dates testified to by witnesses but concluded that the date variance did not render the Information fatally defective. The Court observed that the gravamen of the offense was invasion of possession and that the prosecution relied principally on Raniedo’s testimony. The Court emphasized that Albano admitted she and her children had vacated the unit when electricity was cut in September, leaving the unit largely unattended. The barangay certification indicated the unit had been forcibly opened because of strong water press

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152997)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner SALVADOR MARZALADO, * JR. filed a petition for review on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22645.
Respondent People of the Philippines prosecuted the criminal case for Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Art. 280 of the Revised Penal Code.
The petition assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated November 9, 2001 affirming the Regional Trial Court Decision dated November 5, 1998 in Criminal Case No. Q-98-74695.
The petition also challenged the Court of Appeals Resolution dated April 23, 2002 denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Supreme Court resolved the case in G.R. No. 152997 by Decision dated November 10, 2004.

Key Factual Allegations

Cristina N. Albano was the lessee of a unit owned by Luz Marzalado, mother of Petitioner, and an ejectment judgment against Albano was pending on appeal.
The electricity supply to the leased unit was disconnected in September 1993, and Albano moved her children to her father's house, leaving a maid to sleep occasionally in the unit.
Albano discovered missing property and a changed padlock in early November 1993 and reported the matter to barangay officials who advised her to go to the police.
Complainant Albano alleged that Accused entered her dwelling on November 2, 1993 and removed her belongings, and she filed Information for trespass to dwelling on March 16, 1994.
Eyewitness Narciso Raniedo testified that he saw Petitioner take a lead pipe on November 1, 1993 and forcibly remove Albano's belongings on November 2, 1993.
Petitioner testified that he entered the unit on November 3, 1993 accompanied by barangay officers to turn off an open faucet that was flooding the unit.

Procedural and Evidentiary History

Petitioner was arraigned on May 12, 1994 and pleaded not guilty, and a summary hearing followed in the MeTC.
The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 35, convicted Petitioner on October 28, 1997 of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling and imposed a penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor and a fine of P500.00.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 79 of Quezon City, affirmed the MeTC decision on November 5, 1998.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in its November 9, 2001 Decision and denied reconsideration on April 23, 2002.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the lower courts, and acquitted Petitioner on November 10, 2004.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the conviction of Petitioner for Qualified Trespass to Dwelling.
Whether Petitioner's entry was justified under the justifying circumstances of Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code to prevent imminent damage to property.
Whether the discrepancy in the date of commission alleged in the Information rendered the Information fatally defective.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended that his entry was justified under paragraph four of Art. 11 to prevent further flooding and damage to his mother's property and that