ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Enero 25, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
Ako ay itinalaga bilang caretaker ng lote ng aking amo. Kaugnay nito, naglagay ako ng “NO TRESPASSING” sign at bakod.
Natagalan ako bago nakabalik at nakabisita ulit sa nasabing lote. Nagulat ako nang bumalik ako matapos ang walo hanggang siyam na buwan na may nakatayo nang maliit na barong-barong. Sa galit at inis ko sa pagbalewala sa naturang signage at dahil na rin ipinagkatiwala nga sa akin ang lote, giniba namin ang barong-barong. Hinahabol kami ng may-ari nito. Maaari ba kaming makasuhan? -- Omad
Dear Omad,
Para sa iyong kaalaman, sa kasong Mario Valeroso vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 149718, 29 Setyembre 2003, Ponente: Kagalang-galang na Kasamang Mahistrado Romeo J. Callejo Sr.), pinasyahan ng ating Korte Suprema ang mga sumusunod:
“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.
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 justified 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 v. Gerale, 4 Phil. 218).”
Ayon dito, ang mga elemento ng krimen ng malicious mischief sa ilalim ng Article 327 ng Revised Penal Code ay ang mga sumusunod:
(1) sadyang nagdulot ng pinsala sa ari-arian ng iba;
(2) ang naturang akto ay hindi bumubuo ng arson o iba pang mga krimen na kinasasangkutan ng pagkasira ng ari-arian; at
(3) ang paninira sa ari-arian ng iba ay gagawin para lamang masira ito.
Una, inamin mo na sinadya ninyong gibain ang barong-barong na pagmamay-ari ng iba. Pangalawa, ang demolisyon ay hindi bumubuo ng arson o anumang iba pang krimen na may kinalaman sa pagsira ng ari-arian.
Panghuli, tila nagawa mo/ninyo ang demolisyon upang ilabas ang galit at pagkasuklam sa pagbalewala sa “no trespassing” sign na iyong inilagay sa lote. Kung kaya, maaari kang makasuhan at managot sa nasabing krimen.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Comments