Grana vs. People

Self-help is not a defense to malicious mischief where the destruction of another's property is motivated by hatred, revenge, or evil motive rather than the mere protection of one's rights, and even a claim of ownership over the disputed property does not justify the summary extrajudicial destruction of improvements built thereon by another.

Freddie Bolbes and the Granas were neighbors in Bernabe Subdivision, Parañaque City. Bolbes occupied a property pursuant to a Contract to Sell with the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) dated February 28, 2002, having occupied the lot since 1989. Teofilo Grana claimed ownership over the same parcel based on a contract of lease with option to purchase from Clarito Baldeo, who allegedly acquired it from Alexandra Bernabe. The dispute escalated when Teofilo ordered the destruction of improvements Bolbes had constructed on the property.

• The Property Dispute: Freddie Bolbes claimed ownership over a parcel of land in Bernabe Subdivision, Parañaque City, pursuant to a Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002, with the Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation (HIGC), evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 148468, Tax Declaration, and official receipts. He had occupied the property since 1989. Teofilo Grana claimed the same property based on a contract of lease with option to purchase from Clarito Baldeo, allegedly derived from Alexandra Bernabe.
• The Incident: On July 6, 2003, Teddy Grana, Gil Valdes, and Ricky Dimaganti, allegedly upon the order of Teofilo and Olive Grana, entered the subject property without Bolbes's consent. They destroyed the iron fence, removed the cement foundation, and made diggings that reached a portion of the foundation of Bolbes's apartment, exposing it to danger of destruction. The destruction ceased only upon the arrival of Barangay Tanods. Barangay Tanod Andres Bonifacio testified that Bolbes filed a complaint on July 7, 2003, recorded under blotter entry no. 295, and that he had attempted to persuade the accused to stop their activities.
• Defense Version: Teofilo testified that he made diggings to construct a perimeter fence for mutual protection but claimed Bolbes stopped him. He asserted ownership over the lot and stated that he destroyed the fence because Bolbes built it without his consent. He claimed the matter was referred to the barangay for settlement, but Bolbes subsequently filed a court case after two months.
• Lower Court Findings: The MeTC found all elements of Malicious Mischief present, noting that the accused admitted in their "pinagsamang kontra salaysay" that Teofilo made diggings, removed the fence, and destroyed the cement. The RTC affirmed, finding that the accused acted not to protect property rights but to vent anger and disgust over Bolbes's construction of the fence without their consent. The CA affirmed the Malicious Mischief conviction but acquitted Teddy and Gil of Other Forms of Trespass due to failure to prove the element that the place was uninhabited.

• Failure to Prove Elements: Petitioners argued that not all elements of malicious mischief were proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically contesting the presence of deliberate intent to cause damage.
• Absence of Evil Motive: Petitioners maintained that they were not driven by hatred, revenge, or evil motive when removing the fence, asserting that their actions were justified by their claim of ownership over the disputed property.
• Lack of Malice: Petitioners contended that they did not act maliciously when removing the fence, characterizing their conduct as lawful assertion of property rights rather than criminal mischief.

• Evidentiary Nature of Issues: Respondent argued that the petition raised factual and evidentiary questions requiring re-examination of evidence, which is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari limited to questions of law.
• Conclusiveness of Factual Findings: Respondent maintained that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded high respect and conclusive effect absent extraordinary circumstances.
• Presence of All Elements: Respondent argued that all elements of malicious mischief were established: deliberate causing of damage to property, damage not constituting arson or other destruction crimes, and the act being committed merely for the sake of damaging it out of hatred or revenge.

• Scope of Review: Whether the petition for review on certiorari may properly raise questions of fact regarding the elements of malicious mischief.
• Elements of Malicious Mischief: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Self-Help Defense: Whether the petitioners' claim of ownership and removal of the fence constituted justified self-help or was motivated by hatred, revenge, or evil motive.

• Scope of Review: The petition was denied for raising evidentiary and factual issues requiring re-appreciation of evidence, which violates the limitation of review on certiorari to questions of law. Findings of fact by the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded high respect and conclusive effect absent a showing that they were mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings of the court of origin.
• Elements of Malicious Mischief: All elements of malicious mischief were established: (1) petitioners admitted in their "kontra salaysay" that Teofilo deliberately destroyed the fence and cement foundation and made diggings; (2) the destruction did not constitute arson or other crime involving destruction; and (3) the act was committed merely for the sake of damaging it.
• Self-Help Defense: The defense of property rights does not justify summary extrajudicial destruction of another's improvements. Assuming Teofilo owned the property, he and his co-accused unlawfully took the law into their own hands when they surreptitiously entered Bolbes's enclosed lot and destroyed the fence and foundation. The act was motivated by hatred, revenge, or evil motive, as found by the RTC, evidenced by their pleasure in causing damage to vent anger over Bolbes's construction of the fence without their consent.

• Finality of Factual Findings: Findings of fact by the trial court, particularly its calibration of testimonial evidence and assessment of probative weight, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent extraordinary circumstances such as findings that are mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings of the court of origin.
• Elements of Malicious Mischief: The crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code requires: (1) deliberate causing of damage to the property of another; (2) damage not falling within the terms of arson or other crimes involving destruction; and (3) the act of damaging another's property being committed merely for the sake of damaging it, indicating motive by hatred, revenge, or evil design.
• Prohibition of Self-Help: A person cannot take the law into his own hands to destroy improvements built by another on a disputed property, even assuming ownership thereof. Summary extrajudicial destruction constitutes malicious mischief when motivated by anger or revenge rather than mere protection of rights.
• Benefit of Reduced Penalty to Non-Appealing Co-Accused: Under Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, an appeal taken by one or more of several accused does not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. A reduction in sentence benefits co-accused who did not appeal.

• "Assuming that petitioner Teofilo owned the property in controversy, he and his co-accused were not justified in summarily destroying the improvements built thereon by Bolbes. They unlawfully took the law into their own hands when they surreptitiously entered Bolbes's enclosed lot and destroyed its fence and foundation." — Establishing that self-help does not justify destruction of property when motivated by improper motives.
• "To thus accord with the established doctrine of finality and bindingness of the trial court's findings of fact, [the Court shall] not disturb [the] findings of fact of the [MeTC/]RTC, particularly after their affirmance by the CA." — Affirming the rule on finality of factual findings.
• "The act of damaging another's property was committed merely for the sake of damaging it." — Articulating the third element of malicious mischief.

• Roque v. People, 757 Phil. 392 (2015): Cited for the proposition that a petition for review on certiorari violates the limitation of issues to only legal questions when it seeks re-appreciation and re-examination of evidence which are evidentiary and factual in nature.

• Article 327, Revised Penal Code: Defines malicious mischief as deliberately causing damage to the property of another where such damage does not constitute arson or other crime involving destruction.
• _Article 329, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 10951):_ Prescribes the penalty for malicious mischief based on the value of damage caused, specifically imposing arresto menor or a fine of not less than the value of the damage and not more than Forty thousand pesos if the amount involved does not exceed Forty thousand pesos.
• Section 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court: Provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Inting, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred. A. Reyes, Jr., J., on leave.