Valeroso vs. People

A property caretaker who extrajudicially demolishes an intruder's structure commits malicious mischief and cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of a right, because taking the law into one's own hands is not a necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right.

Petitioner Mario Valeroso, a former barangay captain, was hired by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as caretaker of a lot in Bataan. He posted "No Trespassing" signs on the property. In April 1997, private complainant Julita Castillo, believing the lot was owned by her grandparents, constructed a nipa hut thereon. On June 5, 1997, petitioner, along with several companions, tore down and demolished the hut. Petitioner subsequently admitted to the demolition, claiming he acted alone in his capacity as caretaker.

• Employment as Caretaker: On August 21, 1996, PNB hired petitioner as caretaker of its lot situated in Porto del Sol Subdivision, Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan. Petitioner posted "No Trespassing, PNB Property" signs on the lot to ward off squatters.
• Construction of the Hut: In April 1997, Julita Castillo constructed a nipa hut on the PNB lot, spending P12,350.00 for its construction, under the belief that her grandparents owned the property.
• The Demolition: On June 5, 1997, petitioner, accompanied by Jorge Valeroso, Fernando Operario, Peter Morales, and Rolando de Guzman, tore down and demolished Castillo's hut.
• Admission of Sole Liability: During trial before the MTC, petitioner admitted to demolishing the structure in his capacity as caretaker but absolved his co-accused of any liability, alleging he acted alone.

• Absence of Malice: Petitioner argued that the third element of malicious mischief—that the act be committed merely for the sake of damaging it—was absent, maintaining that he demolished the hut to safeguard PNB's interest and not out of hatred, revenge, or other evil motive.
• Lawful Exercise of a Right: Petitioner invoked paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, positing that he acted in the lawful exercise of a right in effecting the demolition, thereby exempting him from criminal liability.

• Unlawful Extrajudicial Act: Respondent countered, relying on the lower courts' findings, that petitioner was not justified in summarily and extrajudicially demolishing the structure, as validating such unilateral action would set a bad precedent and lead to chaos.
• Presence of Malice: Respondent argued that petitioner's summary demolition was driven by anger and disgust over the disregarded "No Trespassing" sign, smacking of pleasure in causing damage rather than a legitimate effort to safeguard the property.

• Malicious Mischief: Whether the crime of malicious mischief was committed despite petitioner's claim that he demolished the hut to safeguard his employer's interest and without evil motive.
• Justifying Circumstance: Whether petitioner's demolition of the hut falls under the justifying circumstance of acting in the fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Malicious Mischief: The conviction for malicious mischief was affirmed, all elements of the crime under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code being present. Petitioner deliberately caused damage to another's property, the act did not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction, and the demolition was committed merely for the sake of damaging it. The summary demolition was found to be an act of venting anger and disgust over the disregarded "No Trespassing" sign, smacking of pleasure in causing damage rather than a legitimate effort to safeguard the lot.
• Justifying Circumstance: The justifying circumstance under Article 11(5) was held inapplicable. While the first requisite was present, the second requisite—that the injury caused be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right—was absent. Taking the law into one's own hands and summarily demolishing another's structure without lawful authority negates the claim of lawful exercise of a right.

• Malicious Mischief (Article 327, Revised Penal Code) — The deliberate causing of damage to another's property, provided the act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction, and the act is committed merely for the sake of damaging it. The Court applied this by ruling that petitioner's extrajudicial demolition of the nipa hut, motivated by anger over a disregarded sign rather than mere property protection, satisfied all elements of the crime.
• Justifying Circumstance of Lawful Exercise of a Right (Article 11[5], Revised Penal Code) — Requires that (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right, and (2) the injury caused or offense committed was the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The Court held the second requisite unavailing because taking the law into one's own hands to effect an extrajudicial demolition is not a necessary consequence of a caretaker's duty.

• "Justifying Valerozo's 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."
• "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 v. Gerale, 4 Phil. 218 — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that a summary demolition of a squatter's structure smacks of the offender's pleasure in causing damage, thereby satisfying the malice element of malicious mischief.

• Article 327, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes malicious mischief. Applied to hold petitioner criminally liable for deliberately demolishing the nipa hut.
• Article 329, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalty for malicious mischief. Applied by the MTC to impose a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor.
• Article 11(5), Revised Penal Code — Enumerates justifying circumstances, specifically acting in the fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right. Invoked by petitioner but held inapplicable due to the absence of the second requisite.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga.