SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202111. November 25, 2019.]

TEDDY GRANA and TEOFILO GRANA , petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES , respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO , J : p

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the February 21, 2012 Decision 1
and June 6, 2012 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34194,
partially reversing the May 16, 2011 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
195, Parañaque City, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-0980 and 10-0981, which in turn a rmed
in toto the August 10, 2010 Joint Decision 4 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Branch 77, Parañaque City in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-2756 and 03-2757.
Complainant Freddie Bolbes (Bolbes) led before the MeTC, Branch 77 of
Parañaque City an Information 5 for malicious mischief against Teddy Grana (Teddy),
Gil Valdes 6 (Gil), Ricky Dimaganti (Ricky), Olive Grana (Olive), and Teo lo Grana
(Teo lo), and docketed as Crim. Case No. 03-2756, and another Information for Other
Forms of Trespass to Dwelling, docketed as Crim. Case No. 03-2757, only against
Teddy, Gil and Ricky.
All accused pleaded not guilty on the separate charges, except Ricky who still
remains at large. The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation O ce, but the
parties failed to amicably settle their differences. 7
The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Bolbes and the ve
accused were neighbors at Bernabe Subdivision, Parañaque City. Bolbes claimed to
have purchased the property subject of this controversy from the Home Insurance and
Guaranty Corporation (HIGC) for P554,400.00 payable in installments as evidenced by
the Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002. He started occupying the said property in
1989, prior to his application with the HIGC. On the witness stand, Bolbes identi ed his
Sinumpaang Salaysay and con rmed the truthfulness of his statements. In the said
Sinumpaang Salaysay, Bolbes declared that on July 6, 2003, petitioner Teddy and
accused Gil and Ricky, upon the order of Teo lo and Olive and without Bolbes's
consent, entered the subject property by destroying the iron fence, removing the
cement foundation and made diggings until it reached a portion of the foundation of his
apartment, thus, exposing his apartment to danger of being destroyed in case of heavy
rains. Teddy and Gil stopped only when some Barangay Tanods arrived in the vicinity.
Barangay Tanod Andres Bonifacio testi ed that on July 7, 2003, Bolbes went to their
barangay and led a complaint against the ve accused which was entered in the
barangay blotter under entry no. 295. He also tried to persuade the petitioners to stop
as well as accused Teofilo, Olive and Ricky what they were doing. 8
For the defense, only Teo lo was presented. Teo lo testi ed that he bought the
property subject of the controversy from Clarito Baldeo, who in turn, purchased it from
one Alexandra Bernabe, as evidenced by a contract of lease with option to purchase. He
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 admitted that he dug a portion of the lot to construct a perimeter fence for his and
Bolbes's mutual protection, but, it did not push through because Bolbes stopped him.
He referred the matter to the barangay for settlement and to which Bolbes agreed.
However, after two months, he received summons from the court. He declared that he
is the owner of the said parcel of land and that he made some diggings and destroyed
the fence because Bolbes built them without his consent. 9
On August 10, 2010, the MeTC of Parañaque City rendered a Joint Decision
nding all accused in Crim. Case No. 03-2756 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Malicious Mischief, while in Crim. Case No. 03-2757, Teddy and Gil were both
convicted of Other Forms of Trespass. The MeTC ruled that all the elements
constituting the crimes charged were present in these two cases.
The dispositive portion of the MeTC Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. In x x x Criminal Case No. 03-2756 nding the accused Teddy Grana, Gil
Valdes, Olive Grana and Teo lo Grana, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of Malicious Mischief and each is hereby sentenced to
suffer the straight penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months and to pay
the complainant P7,500.00 as Actual Damages, P10,000.00 as Attorney's
fees plus P1,500.00 for each appearance in court, P1,000.00 as incidental
expenses and the costs.
2. In x x x Criminal Case No. 03-2757 nding the accused Teddy Grana, Gil
Valdez, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Other
Forms of Trespass and each is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Fine in the amount of P200.00 each with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency.
3. Let the cases against the accused Ricky Dimaganti be sent to the archives
and an Alias Warrant of Arrest be issued against him for his apprehension.
SO ORDERED. 1 0
Aggrieved, the four accused in Crim. Case No. 03-2756 appealed before the RTC
of Parañaque City. The RTC a rmed in toto the ndings of the MeTC that all the
elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief were present in this case. It ratiocinated
that:
All the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. First, all
accused, in their pinagsamang kotra n salaysay admitted that defendant
Teo lo made some diggings in the subject property, removed the fence and
destroyed the cement built therein by private complainant. Second, the diggings,
demolition of the fence and destruction of the cement do not constitute arson or
any other crime involving destruction. Third, even granting for the sake of
argument that the ownership of the subject property was still disputed, accused
Teo lo was not justi ed in summarily and extra judicially destroying the fence
and removing the cement that private complainant had built therein. As it is, to
the mind of the court, accused did the act complained of not for the purpose of
protecting his right as the alleged owner of the subject property but to give vent
to their anger and disgust over private complainant's alleged act of putting the
fence and cement thereon without their consent. Indeed, accused Teo lo's act
of summarily removing the steel fence and cement put up by private
complainant, with the consent, assent and approval of his co-accused smacks
of their pleasure in causing damage to it. x x x

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 As to the participation of accused Teddy, Olive, Gil and Ricky, in the act
complained of which proved conspiracy, the same was established by said
accused themselves when they stated in their sinumpaang salaysay,
speci cally on page 2, No. 3 thereof, which for ready reference, is herein below
quoted, thus:
"na kami ay di maaring makasuhan ng nasabing reklamo sa mga
dahilang naisaad na at sa dahilang ang aming ginawa ay hindi
bilang paghihiganti, pagkapoot o may motibong masama na
sinadyang ginawa upang sirain lamang ang mga nasabing
bagay." 1 1
As to the crime of Other Forms of Trespass, the RTC, likewise, found on appeal
that all the elements constituting the said crime attendant. It ruled that petitioner's
claim of ownership over the said property as evidenced by the receipt dated July 31,
1994, which did not even mention the transaction and the subject matter thereof
cannot prevail over that of Bolbes's who was able to present more credible pieces of
documentary evidence, such as: Contract to Sell dated February 28, 2002 between
complainant and HIGC, Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 148468 in. the name of HIGC,
breakdown of installment payments, Tax Declaration No. E-010-08879 issued to HIGC;
o cial Real Property Tax Receipt No. 0054254, and the location sketch/drawing
prepared by HIGC. 1 2
Discontented, petitioner interposed an appeal before the CA which was partly
granted.
The CA a rmed the conviction of Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teo lo for the crime of
Malicious Mischief while Teddy and Gil were acquitted of the crime of Other Forms of
Trespass.
In acquitting Teddy and Gil of the crime of Other Forms of Trespass, the CA
found that one of the elements of the said crime, that is, "the entrance is made while
either of them is uninhabited" 1 3 was not established. The CA held that:
The burden of proving that the place was uninhabited when petitioners
surreptitiously entered it belongs to the prosecution. Record, however, does not
show that the prosecution had ever established this element. In fact, in
concluding that the place was uninhabited, the RTC merely used assumptions,
i.e., petitioners' contention that the subject property is inhabited is belied by their
own admission that they and private complainant are inhabiting the immediate
environs; and there is nowhere in their pleadings a statement that the subject
property was being occupied[/inhabited] at the time of the incident.
Assumptions are not proof, especially where, in this case, such assumptions are
non-sequitur. Verily, the prosecution failed to prove the element that the place
was uninhabited when petitioners entered it on the day in question. 1 4
The CA then ruled:
ACCORDINGLY , the petition is PARTLY GRANTED . The assailed
conviction of Teddy Grana, Gil Valdez, Olive Grana and Teo lo Grana for
malicious mischief is AFFIRMED in Criminal Case No. 10-0980; the conviction
of Teddy Grana and Gil Valdez in Criminal Case No. 10-0981 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTING them of other forms of
trespass. 1 5
Teddy, Gil, Olive and Teo lo led a Partial Motion for Reconsideration which was
likewise denied for lack of merit. 1 6
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari led by petitioners Teddy
and Teofilo. The two other accused, Gil and Olive, did not appeal their case.
Petitioners Teddy and Teo lo raise the following assignment of errors, viz.: (1)
not all the elements of the crime of malicious mischief have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt; (2) the petitioners were not driven by hatred, revenge, or evil motive
when they removed the illegal fence constructed by the private complainant; and (3) the
petitioners did not act maliciously when they removed the illegal fence constructed by
Bolbes. 1 7
The contentions are not meritorious.
The issues raised by petitioners require a re-appreciation and re-examination of
the evidence which are evidentiary and factual in nature. On this ground alone, the
petition must be denied because "' one, the petition for review thereby violates the
limitation of the issues to only legal questions, and, two, the Court, not being a trier of
facts, will not disturb the factual ndings of the CA, unless they were mistaken, absurd,
speculative, con icting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the
findings reached by the court of origin,' which was not shown to be the case here." 1 8
"Besides, ndings of facts of the RTC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence,
its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on
the said ndings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect when a rmed by
the CA, as in this case. [The MeTC/RTC] 'had the opportunity to observe the witnesses
on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth.' 'To thus accord with the
established doctrine of nality and bindingness of the trial court's ndings of fact, [the
Court shall] not disturb [the] ndings of fact of the [MeTC/]RTC, particularly after their
a rmance by the CA,' as petitioner[s were] not able to su ciently establish any
extraordinary circumstance which merits a departure from the said doctrine." 1 9
Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides:
Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. — Any person who
shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within
the terms of the next preceding chapter, shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
The elements of Malicious Mischief have been duly proven in this case, viz.:
1. Petitioners admitted in their "kontra salaysay " that Teo lo deliberately
destroyed the fence and its cement foundation, and made diggings in the
subject property;
2. The destruction did not constitute arson or other crime involving
destruction; and
3. The act of damaging another's property was committed merely for the
sake of damaging it.
Under the third element, assuming that petitioner Teo lo owned the property in
controversy, he and his co-accused were not justi ed 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. Evidently, petitioners' actions were made out of hatred, revenge or evil
motive. As aptly found by the RTC:
[T]o the mind of the court, accused did the act complained of not for the
purpose of protecting his right as the alleged owner of the subject property but
to give vent to their anger and disgust over private complainant's alleged act of
putting the fence and cement thereon without their consent. x x x 2 0
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Considering that all the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief are present
in this case, petitioners were properly adjudged guilty thereof.
With regard to the penalty imposed by the MeTC, as a rmed by the RTC and
further a rmed by the Court of Appeals, there is a need to modify the same in view of
the adjustments stated in Republic Act No. 10951. Under Section 88 thereof, the
penalty imposed on persons found liable for Malicious Mischief under Article 327 and
penalized under Article 329 is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 88. Article 329 of the same Act, as amended by Commonwealth
Act No. 3999, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Art. 329. Other mischiefs. — The mischiefs not included in the next
preceding article shall be punished:
"1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if
the value of the damage caused exceeds Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000);
"2. B y arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if
such value is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not
exceed Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000); and
"3. B y arresto menor or a ne of not less than the
value of the damage caused and not more than Forty
thousand pesos (P40,000), if the amount involved does
not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or cannot be
estimated." (Emphasis Ours)
The value of the damage caused to private complainant by petitioners is only
P7,500.00. Consequently, pursuant to Article 329 of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
10951, petitioners' original sentence of a straight penalty of imprisonment of four (4)
months should be reduced to arresto menor or imprisonment of one (1) day to thirty
(30) days.
We note that Gil and Olive did not appeal their case before the Court of Appeals.
Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]n 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." In this
case, considering the reduction of the sentence imposed on the crime committed,
which is favorable and applicable to Gil and Olive, then they should bene t from the
reduction of the sentence imposed on them.
WHEREFORE , the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED . Petitioners Teddy
Grana and Teo lo Grana, as well as accused Gil Valdes and Olive Grana, are found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malicious Mischief under Article 327
and penalized under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The February
21, 2012 Decision and the June 6, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 34194 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that Teddy Grana, Teo lo
Grana, Gil Valdes and Olive Grana are sentenced to suffer imprisonment of thirty (30)
days of arresto menor and to pay private complainant Freddie Bolbes the amount of
P7,500.00 as actual damages, which shall earn interest of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Inting and Zalameda, ** JJ., concur.
A.B. Reyes, Jr., * J., is on leave.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes

* On leave
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2727 dated October 25, 2019.

1. Rollo, pp. 41-48; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this
Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Stephen C. Cruz.
2. Id. at 50-51.

3. Id. at 85-90; penned by Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal.

4. Id. at 60-67; penned by Judge Donato H. de Castro.

5. Id. at 60-61.
6. Also spelled as "Valdez" in some parts of the records.
7. Rollo, p. 61.
8. Id. at 86.

9. Id. at 87.
10. Id. at 67.
11. Id. at 88-89.
12. Id. at 90.

13. Id. at 46.

14. Id. at 46-47.
15. Id. at 47-48.
16. Id. at 50.
17. Id. at 28.

18. Roque v. People, 757 Phil. 392, 398 (2015).

19. Id.
20. Rollo, p. 89.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 cdasiaonline.com