GR 149718; (September, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149718 , September 29, 2003
Mario Valeroso, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Mario Valeroso was the caretaker of a lot owned by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). He posted “No Trespassing” signs on the property. Despite this, private complainant Julita Castillo constructed a nipa hut on the lot in April 1997, believing it was owned by her grandparents. On June 5, 1997, Valeroso, together with others, demolished Castillo’s hut. Consequently, Castillo filed a criminal complaint for Malicious Mischief against him. The Municipal Trial Court convicted Valeroso, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty of the crime of Malicious Mischief.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. The Court held that all elements of Malicious Mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) the offender deliberately damaged another’s property; (2) the damage did not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; and (3) the act was committed merely for the sake of damaging it. The petitioner admitted to the deliberate demolition. The Court rejected his defense that he acted to safeguard PNB’s interest and without malice, ruling that his summary, extrajudicial action was motivated by anger and disgust over Castillo’s disregard of the warning signs, which constitutes the requisite malicious intent.
The Court also found unavailing the petitioner’s invocation of the justifying circumstance of lawful exercise of a right under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code. While the first requisite—that he acted in the performance of a duty as caretaker—was present, the second requisite was not. The injury caused was not the necessary consequence of a due performance of duty. The petitioner took the law into his own hands; the proper recourse was to seek judicial authority for the demolition, not to act unilaterally. His act was not a lawful exercise of a right but a violation of the law.