Grana v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Freddie Bolbes filed criminal informations for malicious mischief and other forms of trespass to dwelling against petitioners Teddy Grana and Teofilo Grana, along with Gil Valdes, Ricky Dimaganti, and Olive Grana. Bolbes alleged that on July 6, 2003, the accused, acting on orders from Teofilo and Olive, entered Bolbes's property, destroyed an iron fence, removed cement foundation, and dug into the apartment's foundation, exposing it to danger. The defense, through Teofilo, claimed ownership of the property and stated the digging was for a mutual perimeter fence, which Bolbes allegedly stopped. Teofilo asserted that Bolbes built the fence and cement without his consent. 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City found all accused guilty of malicious mischief and Teddy and Gil guilty of other forms of trespass. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision in toto. The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted the appeal, affirming the conviction for malicious mischief against Teddy, Gil, Olive, and Teofilo, but acquitting Teddy and Gil of other forms of trespass due to the prosecution's failure to prove the element that the place was uninhabited. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioners Teddy and Teofilo Grana filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising three assignments of error: (1) not all elements of malicious mischief were proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) they were not driven by hatred, revenge, or evil motive; and (3) they did not act maliciously. The Supreme Court found these contentions without merit, noting that the issues required re-examination of evidence, which is generally outside the Court's scope. The Court affirmed the elements of malicious mischief were proven and modified the penalty based on Republic Act No. 10951, reducing the sentence to thirty (30) days of arresto menor for all convicted individuals.
Issue(s)
Whether all the elements of the crime of malicious mischief have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the petitioners were driven by hatred, revenge, or evil motive when they removed the fence. Whether the petitioners acted maliciously when they removed the fence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the conviction of Teddy Grana, Teofilo Grana, Gil Valdes, and Olive Grana for malicious mischief. The Court modified the penalty imposed, sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of thirty (30) days of arresto menor and to pay Freddie Bolbes P7,500.00 as actual damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether all the elements of the crime of malicious mischief have been proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that all elements of malicious mischief were duly proven. Firstly, the petitioners admitted in their "kontra salaysay" that Teofilo deliberately destroyed the fence and its cement foundation and made diggings. Secondly, the destruction did not constitute arson or any other crime involving destruction. Thirdly, the act of damaging another's property was committed merely for the sake of damaging it. The Court emphasized that even if Teofilo owned the property, he and his co-accused were not justified in summarily destroying improvements built by Bolbes, as they unlawfully took the law into their own hands. The Court noted that the findings of fact of the RTC and CA, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court, are accorded high respect and will not be disturbed unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. On Whether the petitioners were driven by hatred, revenge, or evil motive when they removed the fence: The Court found that the petitioners' actions were made out of hatred, revenge, or evil motive, as aptly found by the RTC. The RTC reasoned that the accused did the act complained of not for the purpose of protecting their right as alleged owners but to give vent to their anger and disgust over Bolbes's alleged act of putting up the fence and cement without their consent. The Supreme Court reiterated that the petitioners unlawfully took the law into their own hands when they surreptitiously entered Bolbes's enclosed lot and destroyed its fence and foundation, indicating a malicious intent rather than a legitimate assertion of rights. On Whether the petitioners acted maliciously when they removed the fence: The Court concluded that the petitioners acted maliciously. The destruction of the fence and foundation, even if the ownership of the property was disputed, was not justified. The RTC found that the act of summarily removing the steel fence and cement put up by the private complainant, with the consent of co-accused, "smacks of their pleasure in causing damage to it." This demonstrates the malicious intent behind the act, fulfilling the third element of malicious mischief, which is that the act of damaging another's property was committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
Main Doctrine
The elements of malicious mischief are: (1) that the property belongs to another; (2) that the offender deliberately causes damage thereto; (3) that the act of damaging the property is done merely for the sake of causing damage, not for any other purpose. The penalty for malicious mischief is modified by Republic Act No. 10951, with the penalty for damage not exceeding P40,000.00 being arresto menor or a fine.