SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 149718. September 29, 2003.]

MARIO VALEROSO , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.

David G. Paguio for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner was appointed caretaker of a lot owned by the Philippine National Bank.
Sometime in April 1997, despite the "no trespassing" sign, private complainant Julita
Castillo constructed a nipa house thereon. On June 5, 1997, petitioner, together with four
others, tore down and demolished private complainant's house. Hence, petitioner and his
cohorts were charged with malicious mischief. Petitioner admitted that he deliberately
demolished the nipa hut, but claimed that his motive was lawful and that there was no
malice in causing damage to the private complainant's property. He maintained that he
demolished the said property to safeguard the interest of his employer. Petitioner further
invoked paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. According to him, he acted in
the lawful exercise of a right in effecting the demolition. The Metropolitan Trial Court
(MTC), however, found otherwise. It convicted petitioner as charged and imposed a
sentence of three (3) months of arresto mayor. Petitioner's co-accused were acquitted for
insu ciency of evidence. The decision of the MTC was a rmed by both the Regional Trial
Court and the Court of Appeals. Hence, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
AIHECa

In denying the petition, the Court found all the elements of the crime of malicious
mischief present in this case. First, petitioner admitted that he deliberately demolished the
nipa hut of private complainant. Second, the demolition did not constitute arson or any
other crime involving destruction. Third, as correctly found by the Court of Appeals,
petitioner's summary demolition of the structure was not so much to safeguard the lot as
it is to give vent to his anger and disgust over private complainant's disregard of the "no
trespassing" sign he placed thereon. Petitioner's act of summarily demolishing the house
smacks of his pleasure in causing damage to it. The Court further held that the petitioner
could not rightfully invoke paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. According to
the Court, the petitioner was not acting in the ful llment of his duty when he took the law
into his own hands and summarily demolished private complainant's hut.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; MALICIOUS MISCHIEF; ELEMENTS; PRESENT IN THE CASE

AT BAR.— The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the
Revised Penal Code are: 1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property
of another; 2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction; 3. That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the
sake of damaging it. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, all the foregoing elements are
present in this case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 2. ID.; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE; REQUISITES; CASE AT BAR. — Neither can the petitioner
rightfully invoke paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code which states: Art. 11.
Justifying circumstances.— The following do not incur any criminal liability:... 5. Any person
who acts in the ful llment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or o ce. The
requisites of the foregoing justifying circumstance are (I) that the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (2) that the injury caused or
the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or o ce. In this case, as held not only by the MTC but also
the RTC and the CA, the petitioner deliberately demolished the property of Mrs. Castillo
without any lawful authority. Thus, while the rst requisite is present, the second is
unavailing. The petitioner was not acting in the ful llment of his duty when he. took the law
into his own hands and summarily demolished Mrs. Castillo's hut.

RESOLUTION

CALLEJO, SR. , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari led by Mario Valeroso seeking
to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated September 7, 2001 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 23672 which affirmed the petitioner's conviction for Malicious Mischief.
The undisputed antecedent facts are as follows:
The petitioner was a former barangay captain of Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan. On
August 21, 1996, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) hired the petitioner as caretaker of its
lot situated in Porto del Sol Subdivision, Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan. Consequently, the
petitioner put up on the said lot a sign which reads "No Trespassing, PNB Property" to
ward off squatters.
Sometime in April 1997, despite the sign, Mrs. Julita Castillo, believing that the said
lot was owned by her grandparents, constructed a nipa hut thereon. She spent P12,350 for
the hut's construction.
On June 5, 1997, the petitioner, together with Jorge Valeroso, Fernando Operario,
Peter Morales and Rolando de Guzman, tore down and demolished Mrs. Castillo's hut. She
thus led with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bataan a criminal complaint for malicious
mischief against the petitioner and his cohorts:
That on or about 9:30 o'clock more or less in the morning of June 5, 1997
at Sitio Porto, Brgy. Balon Anito, Municipality of Mariveles, Province of Bataan,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused with deliberate intent did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously motivated with hatred and confederately conspiring and mutually
helping one another to attain their united purpose, and without any authority from
the Law demolished the house owned by the herein named offended party Mrs.
Julita Castillo, to the Damaged [sic] and Prejudiced [sic] of the aforementioned
offended party in the total amount of twelve thousand three hundred fty pesos
(P12,350.00) Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 The case was tried in accordance with the Rules on Summary Procedure. The
petitioner and his co-accused were required to submit their counter-a davits. During the
arraignment, they pleaded not guilty. After due trial, the MTC rendered judgment upon the
following findings:
Accused Valerozo (sic) admitted in his counter-a davit and during his oral
testimony that he indeed demolished the structure of complainant Julita Castillo
in his capacity as caretaker of the owner, PNB, Republic Bank, after he warned her
and all illegal occupants to vacate the premises even posting "NO TRESPASSING"
signs to indicate that the place is privately owned; he also absolved all his co-
defendants from any liability alleging that he acted alone during the demolition of
said structure. By this unequivocal admission made by Valerozo (sic), the
question which arises is whether or not his being designated as caretaker of the
property necessarily clothed him with authority to demolish the structure of the
complainant without further resort to legal niceties such as obtaining a written
order from the Court authorizing such demolition.

The Court is inclined to support the view that Valerozo should not have
taken the law into his own hands to cause the destruction and eventual
demolition of Mrs. Castillo's structure even if it could be assumed that it was
constructed without his permission or that of the owner, PNB, Republic Bank, or
that she was merely an intruder, interloper or a squatter on the land. Justifying
Valerozo's (sic) unilateral action of demolition will set a bad precedent and may
result in chaos and disorder in society as the owner or anybody perceived to be so
authorized by the owner can act on his own and conduct demolition
extrajudicially. This is against the law and cannot be countenanced.
All the essential elements to establish the crime of Malicious Mischief has
been su ciently proven against accused Valerozo (sic) alone. The evidence
taken as a whole, however, does not point with positive certainty towards the guilt
of the rest of the defendants. 3

The dispositive portion of the MTC decision reads:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, considering the fact that the guilt of
defendant Mario Valerozo (sic) of the crime of Malicious Mischief has been duly
established beyond reasonable doubt; there being neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in attendance, and pursuant to Article 329, rst
paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to a straight penalty
of three (3) months of arresto mayor, including whatever accessory penalties
which may be applicable and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Accused Jorge
Valerozo, Peter Morales (who died during the proceedings), Rolando De Guzman
and Fernando Operario are hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED. 4

The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), of Balanga, Bataan, Branch
4, which a rmed with modi cation the decision of the MTC. The dispositive portion of the
RTC decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby
MODIFIED. There being no reason to deviate from the decision of the Municipal
Trial Court Judge with respect to the criminal liability of the accused the same is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. However, the court nds appellant civilly liable in the
amount of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) as actual damages.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED. 5

The petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered
the assailed decision a rming that of the RTC, nding the petitioner guilty of malicious
mischief and holding him criminally and civilly liable therefor:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed
decision AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 6

Undaunted, the petitioner now comes to this Court alleging that the CA erred in
declaring him guilty of malicious mischief.
The petitioner admits that he deliberately demolished Mrs. Castillo's nipa hut. He,
however, contends that the third element of the crime of malicious mischief, i.e., that the
act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it, is
not present in this case. He maintains that he demolished Mrs. Castillo's nipa hut to
safeguard the interest of his employer, the PNB, and for no other reason. His motive was
lawful and that there was no malice in causing the damage to the private complainant's
property. In other words, he did not act out of "hatred, revenge or other evil motive."
Invoking paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the petitioner posits that
he acted in the lawful exercise of a right in effecting the demolition. He thus prays that he
be absolved of any criminal liability therefor.
The petition is bereft of merit.
The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised
Penal Code are:
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of
another;
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction;
3. That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for
the sake of damaging it. 7
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, all the foregoing elements are present in this
case. First, he admits that he deliberately demolished the nipa hut of Mrs. Castillo. Second,
the demolition does not constitute arson or any other crime involving destruction. Third, as
correctly found by the CA:
Petitioner was appointed caretaker of the subject lot on August 21, 1996.
Upon the other hand, private complainant constructed her hut thereon only in April
1997. Such being the case, petitioner was not justi ed in summarily and
extrajudicially demolishing private complainant's structure. As it is, petitioner
proceeded not so much to safeguard the lot as it is to give vent to his anger and
disgust over Castillo's disregard of the "no trespassing" sign he placed thereon.
Indeed, his act of summarily demolishing the house smacks of his pleasure in
causing damage to it (United States vs. Gerale, 4 Phil. 218). 8
Neither can the petitioner rightfully invoke paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code which states:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
xxx xxx xxx

5. Any person who acts in the ful llment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.

The requisites of the foregoing justifying circumstance are (1) that the accused
acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (2) that the injury
caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. 9
In this case, as held not only by the MTC but also the RTC and the CA, the petitioner
deliberately demolished the property of Mrs. Castillo without any lawful authority. Thus,
while the rst requisite is present, the second is unavailing. The petitioner was not acting in
the ful llment of his duty when he took the law into his own hands and summarily
demolished Mrs. Castillo's hut. It bears stressing that the said hut was constructed on the
property as early as April 1997.
In sum, the petitioner has failed to su ciently show that the appellate court
committed reversible error in the assailed decision.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The
assailed Decision dated September 7, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
23672 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia, with Associate Justices Hilarion L.

Aquino and Jose L. Sabio, Jr. concurring.

2. Rollo, p. 14.
3. Rollo, pp. 17–18.
4. Id. at 18.
5. Id. at 23.
6. Id. at 31.
7. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Vol. II, p. 326.
8. CA Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 29 (Emphasis ours).

9. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Vol. I, p. 196.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com