Biaban v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Coronacion P. Biaban filed a complaint for malicious mischief against Bibiana P. Bautista, her husband Longinos Bautista, and their four sons. The complaint alleged that the accused damaged a star apple tree and vegetable plants belonging to the complainant. Procedural History: The case was initially filed before the Municipal Court of New Washington, Aklan. The municipal court dismissed the case against Bibiana P. Bautista due to exemption from criminal liability as the complainant's sister, but convicted the other accused, sentencing them to twenty (20) days of imprisonment and to indemnify the complainant. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Aklan, Branch II, presided over by respondent Judge Amelia K. del Rosario, all the accused were acquitted. The Appeal: The complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge del Rosario, alleging bias in her decision on appeal in Criminal Case No. 2489. The complainant contended that the acquittal was unjust and indicative of partiality.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with bias and partiality in acquitting the accused in Criminal Case No. 2489 for malicious mischief. Whether the damage caused to the complainant's property constituted the crime of malicious mischief.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against respondent Judge Amelia K. del Rosario was dismissed. The Court found no evidence of bias or partiality in her decision. The acquittal of the accused was affirmed based on the finding that no malice attended the damage caused to the complainant's property, thus negating the element of malice required for the crime of malicious mischief.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent Judge acted with bias and partiality in acquitting the accused in Criminal Case No. 2489 for malicious mischief: The Court found no showing from the record that respondent Judge acted with bias or partiality in the adjudication of the case. The acquittal was based on the evidence presented, which led the respondent judge to conclude that the damage, if any, was not inflicted due to hate, revenge, or other evil motive. The transfer of a house by Bibiana Bautista to a portion of land belonging to her son, which apparently caused the damage, was found to be the reason for the action, and not malice. On Whether the damage caused to the complainant's property constituted the crime of malicious mischief: The Court affirmed the respondent judge's finding that no malice attended the actions of the accused. The crime of malicious mischief requires malice, which is the intent to cause damage or injury to another's property out of hate, revenge, or other evil motive. In this case, the evidence established that the damage was an incidental consequence of Bibiana Bautista's transfer of her son's house, and not an act done with malicious intent. Therefore, if there is no malice in causing the damage to the property, there is no crime of malicious mischief, and the obligation to repair the damage is only civil.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that the crime of malicious mischief, defined under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, necessitates the presence of malice or evil intent in the commission of the act causing damage to another's property. In the absence of such malice, the act may only give rise to a civil liability for damages, not criminal liability. This principle was applied in dismissing the administrative complaint against the respondent judge, who had acquitted the accused in a malicious mischief case based on her finding that no malice attended the damage caused.