G.R. No. 1768. February 17, 1905

On August 3, 1903, a complaint was filed by the deputy provincial
fiscal of Cebu charging Catalino Gerale and Bartolome Gerale with the
crime of causing injury to property. The complaint stated that these
defendants on July 23 of that year, in the barrio of Tanque, town of
Talisay, in that province, at about 8 o’clock in the morning,
maliciously and without legal motive therefor, did enter the property
of Eugenia Bacho in said town without her consent and cut eighty
cocoanut shoots, the damage amounting to 400 pesos, Mexican, all
contrary to law.

The case came on for trial in pursuance to said complaint and it
appeared from the evidence that in the early hours of the morning of
July 23, 1903, the defendants, Catalino and Bartolome Gerale, father
and son, proceeded to the property in question, situated in the barrio
of Tanque, town of Talisay, Province of Cebu; that they climbed some
cocoanut trees which were growing upon said property and immediately
proceeded to cut about eighty shoots and forty small trees that were
producing tuba; that when Eugenia Bacho saw them she scolded
them and asked how and why they cut the cocoanut shoots on her property
and warned them not to continue damaging her property; that the
defendants becoming angry, came down out of the trees and advanced
toward her, raising their bolos and saying, “Here we shall all die;”
that as the woman started to run, crying for help in order to bring the
neighbors to her assistance, the defendants followed her as far as the
road; that each one of the shoots was of the value of 5 pesos and that
said shoots produced tuba to the value of 2 reale
per day; that the cocoanut trees which were planted on the land had
been planted abont twelve years previously by said Eugenia Bacho and
her husband, Luis Abarques; that the land was part of the hacienda of
Santo Nino, the property of the friars; that this hacienda was then
transferred to the Compañia Agricola de Ultramar; that
Abarques and Bacho, after leasing the land from the manager of said
hacienda, planted therein some cocoanut trees some twelve years ago,
and that for this reason they were the persons who, by their laborers
called mananguetes cleaned off the land and cultivated the same and obtained tuba from the trees thereon, without any opposition whatever for about four months prior to September of said year.

The defendants pleaded not guilty. They state that the land on which
the cocoanut trees grew was the property of Marcelo Gerale,, and that
after the latter’s death one of the defendants, Catalino Gerale, son of
Marcelo Gerale and father of the other defendant (Bartolome), succeeded
in the tenancy of the land; that he continued in possession of the land
from ,1883 to 1889; that in the latter year he was expelled from the
land by the friars for failure to pay the rent; that at that time
Eugenia Bacho and her husband, Luis Abarques, took possession of the
land; that they cultivated the same; that in 1889 there were no
cocoanut trees growing in the place and that the trees there at the
present time had been planted by the friars; that in 1898, by virtue of
an order of the revolutionary government, these lands were restored to
the former tenants thereof, who had been expelled by the friars; that
the defendant Catalino Gerale took possession again of the said land in
1899 and in that year there were no more friars in the hacienda of
Talisay. He offered to present a document which he received from his
father, in which document it is stated that the latter bought the land
in the year 1864 from the former owners, Mariano Fortick and Casimira
Fortick. This document was not admitted as evidence because of the
objection interposed by the prosecution.

The proof shows that two laborers called mananguetes worked on the land by order of Eugenia Bacho, extracting the tuba
from the cocoanut trees; they state that they do not know who profited
thereby; they say that they were on said land on the morning of the 23d
of July; that that morning Catalino had a quarrel with Eugenia Bacho.
The defendants deny having threatened her or having cut the cocoanut
shoots.

The crime of damage to property is not determined solely by the mere
act of inflicting injury upon the property of a third person, but it
must be shown that the act had for its object the injury of the
property merely for the sake of damaging it. Without this circumstance
the essential element of the crime is lacking and the criminal
intention of the culprit can not be established. Such is the doctrine
laid down by the decision of the supreme court of Spain dated February
23,1884. This doctrine is based precisely on the provisions of articles
562 and 566 of the Penal Code, The first of these articles says:

“Those who cause any damage to property of others not specified in
the preceding chapter are guilty of injuries to property and subject to
the penalties of this chapter.”

One of the facts clearly proven in this case is that the two defendants cut eighty cocoanut shoots, which were producing tuba,
without having any right so to do; that they occasioned thereby serious
damage to the interests of those who planted the trees; that the damage
caused amounted to 400 pesos The defendants executed this act,
prompted, doubtless, by grievance, hate, or revenge, because the
injured party and her husband had leased the land from the manager of
the hacienda after Catalino Gerale, one of the defendants and the
father of the other defendant, had been expelled from said land by the
attorney of the owners. When the injured party tried to stop the damage
they were causing to the property, defendants threatened her and
followed her as far as the road.

This court will not decide the question as to who is the owner of
the property whereon grew the cocoanut trees, because it is not
necessary for the determination of the crime and the guilt of
defendants. Even granting that Catalino Gerale was the owner of the
property, he would not be justified in doing as he did, nor would he,
together with his codefendant, be free from liability. Both defendants
have stated that they were not the owners and that they did not plant
the cocoanut trees; that Eugenia Bacho was the one who profited by said
cocoanut trees and the one who distilled the tuba, employing
laborers for that purpose for some weeks or months previous. Therefore,
the defendants proceeded without any right or reason for doing what
they did and their intention in injuring the trees was solely for the
pleasure of causing damage thereto, since they did not profit by
cutting the trees. This is also established from the fact that had
these shoots been their own property they would not have done it. Even
admitting that Catalino Gerale had taken possession of the land in 1898
with cocoanut trees already planted by the injured party herein and her
husband, this circumstance does not relieve him or his codefendant from
liability. Eugenia Bacho and her husband had planted the cocoanut trees
twelve years previous; they acted in good faith and had the consent of
the manager of the land, and, therefore, could not be deprived of their
property in the violent manner herein described.

As for the rest, it is clearly proven that the defendants knew very
well that they were not the owners of the property; they had consented
to the injured party herein profiting by said trees, extracting the tuba by means of her laborers, mananguetes,
and therefore, when the defendants cut said shoots, they acted with
malicious intention of injuring the property of the offended party.

For the reasons, therefore, above stated, and taking into
consideration the provisions of articles 83 and 92 of the Penal Code,
we are of the opinion that the judgment below, rendered November
23,1903, should be affirmed. Catalino Gerale and Bartolome Gerale are
sentenced to pay a fine of 400 pesos, Conant, each, to indemnify,
jointly and severally, to Luis Abarques and Eugenia Bacho, 400 pesos,
and to pay the costs of the suit, it being understood that the
defendants shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
but such subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed that which they might
have to suffer for failure to pay the fine herein imposed.

Let the case be returned to the court below, with a certified copy
of this decision and of the judgment that shall be rendered in
accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.