MARIO VALEROSO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Valeroso versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Mario Valeroso against the People of the Philippines. Mario Valeroso, a former barangay captain who had been hired as caretaker of a bank's lot, was charged with malicious mischief for tearing down a neighbor's nipa hut. He asks the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction, insisting that he acted only to protect his employer's property and therefore without malice. The case matters because it draws the line between protecting a lawful right and taking the law into one's own hands, and because it fixes the third element of malicious mischief: that the damage be caused merely for the sake of damaging.

Procedural History

Julita Castillo filed a criminal complaint for malicious mischief with the Municipal Trial Court of Bataan, and the case was tried under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The Municipal Trial Court convicted Mario Valeroso and acquitted his co-accused for insufficiency of evidence. He appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, which affirmed the conviction in full but added civil liability of two thousand pesos as actual damages. He then went up to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petition and affirmed the decision below. Still undaunted, he filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Mario Valeroso was a former barangay captain of Balon Anito, Balanga, Bataan. On August 21, 1996, the Philippine National Bank hired him as caretaker of its lot in Porto del Sol Subdivision, and he put up a sign reading "No Trespassing, PNB Property" to ward off squatters.

Sometime in April 1997, despite the sign, Julita Castillo constructed a nipa hut on the lot, believing it was owned by her grandparents. She spent twelve thousand three hundred fifty pesos on the hut.

On June 5, 1997, Mario Valeroso, together with several companions, tore down and demolished the hut. Castillo filed the criminal complaint. At trial, Valeroso admitted in his counter-affidavit and in his testimony that he had demolished the structure himself as caretaker, after warning her and the other occupants to vacate, and he absolved his co-accused of any liability.

Issues

• Whether or not the third element of malicious mischief, that the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it, is present despite the petitioner's claim that he acted to safeguard his employer's interest.
• Whether or not the petitioner may invoke the justifying circumstance of acting in the lawful exercise of a right or office under paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code defines malicious mischief, and the Court sets out its elements as follows:

That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another; That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

These elements are the test the Court applies to the petitioner's admitted act of demolition.

Paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability: Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

This is the justifying circumstance the petitioner invokes to escape criminal liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all three elements are present. The petitioner admitted that he deliberately demolished the hut, and the demolition does not constitute arson or any other crime involving destruction. On the third element, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner was not justified in summarily and extrajudicially demolishing the structure. He proceeded not so much to safeguard the lot as to give vent to his anger and disgust over Castillo's disregard of the no trespassing sign, and his act smacked of his pleasure in causing damage to it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the justifying circumstance does not apply. Its requisites are, first, that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right, and second, that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. While the first requisite is present, the second is not. The petitioner was not acting in the fulfillment of his duty when he took the law into his own hands and summarily demolished the hut, which had stood on the property since April 1997.

Doctrine

Malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the offender deliberately cause damage to another's property, that the act not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction, and that the damage be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. A caretaker who demolishes a structure on his employer's land without lawful authority does not act in the lawful exercise of a right or office, because the offense is not the necessary consequence of the due performance of any duty. A person may not take the law into his own hands; the owner or anyone perceived to be authorized by the owner cannot conduct demolition extrajudicially.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in toto, leaving Mario Valeroso convicted of malicious mischief and civilly liable.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a caretaker who summarily demolishes another's structure to vent his anger does not act in the lawful exercise of a right, and the damage is caused merely for the sake of damaging. Examiners use this case to test the third element of malicious mischief and the requisites of paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.