1

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS MANILA EIGHTH DIVISION MARIO PUNZAL AND AMELIA PUNZAL, Petitioners, - versus CA-GR. CR NO. 35392

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x------------------------------------------------------x COMMENT Respondent, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, in compliance with the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated 11 April 2013, a copy of which was received by the Office of the Solicitor General on 02 May 2013, respectfully submits this Comment and avers: NATURE OF THE PETITION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 15 of Malolos City, dated 05 November 2012. The RTC affirmed the Decision of the Municipal Trial Court convicting petitioner of the crime of Malicious Mischief.

Mario Punzal and Amelia Punzal (hereinafter petitioners) were charged with the crime of Malicious Mischief under the following Information, dated 26 May 2000; That on or about 2:00 pm May 18, 2000, in Barangay Partida, municipality of Norzagaray, Province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to damage the fruitsplant owned by MELANIE MARTIN-PALAD by pulling and cutting the banana fruits tree, pineapple tree and orange trees with the use of HALABAS with the value of P28, 000.00 to the damage and prejudice of said MELANIE MARTIN-PALAD in the sum of P28, 000.00 Philippine Currency. Contrary to Law. (MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, page 1). When arraigned, petitioner, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The case then proceeded to trial on the merits. In its Decision dated 20 June 2012, the MTC convicted and sentenced petitioner of Malicious Mischief as follows: WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing discussions, the Court finds accused Mario Punzal and Amelia Punzal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malicious Mischief defined and penalized under Article 327 in relation to Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in attendance, both accused are hereby sentenced to a straight penalty of IMPRISONMENT of three (3) months of Arresto Mayor. The above named-accused are likewise ordered to pay private complainant Melanie Martin-Palad jointly and

severally, the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00) as damages. (Ibid. page 9) Petitioner then elevated the case to the RTC on the following grounds: 3.01 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED BOTH ACCUSED DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT:
3.01-a. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT MELANIE PALAD WAS PART AND PORTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING TENANTED BY ACCUSED APPELLANTS. 3.01-b. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT ACQUIRED THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM HER MOTHER FRANCISCA SANTIAGO DURING THE EXISTENCE OF TENANCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS, THUS, SHE SHALL BE SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS AND SUBSTITUTED TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF HER MOTHER ON THE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FARMER TENANTS HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

3.02. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE LACK OF THE ELEMENT OF COMMITING THE ACT FOR THE SAKE OF DAMAGING IT. 3.03. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED DAMAGES BY RELYING ON THE PICTURES WHICH HOWEVER, WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED AS GENUINE NOR IT DEPICTS COMPLETELY THE ALLEGED DESTROYED 300 BAANA TREES, 100 ORANGE TREES AND 1,000 PINEAPPLE PLANTS.

(Appeal Memorandum, 08 August 2012, page 6). The RTC, in a decision, affirmed the ruling of the MTC, to wit; WHEREFORE the present appeal is dismissed for lack of merit and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. SO ORDERED. (RTC Decision, 05 November 2012, page 5). Hence, this Amended Petition for Review raising the following contentions: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF INSIDE THEIR TENANTED LANDHOLDING. 2. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT TENANTS OF TE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE IT IS NOT COVERED BY DIFFERENT TITLE NOT MENTIONED IN THE DARAB DECISION DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IT IS PART AND PORTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDING OF PETITIONERS. 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS CORRECT IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT BEING HURT IS TANTAMOUNT TO ANGER. 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE FEELINGS OF ONE OF THE PETITIONERS AS BEING HURT WILL JUSTIFY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE OTHER PETITIONER IS GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THAT FEELING.

(Amended Petition for Review, 14 March 2013, pp. 67). COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS The following paraphrased summary of the facts are culled from the discussion of the MTC in its decision: Petitioners are farmer tenants of the subject agricultural land consisting of 22, 875 square meters owned by Francisca Santiago, mother of Melanie PaladMartin (hereinafter referred to as private-respondent). Private respondent bought a portion of her mothers land measuring 3,363 square meters after it was subdivided. A separate title in the name of the private respondent covering such part was subsequently issued. In a case filed by the petitioners before the Department Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), their status as tenants of the agricultural land of Francisca Santiago was recognized and upheld by the administrative court, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The case, however, did not include the portion of the agricultural lot belonging to Francisca Santiago which was bought by private respondent. On 18 May 2000, around 2:00 in the afternoon, the private respondent saw the petitioners destroying the banana, orange, pineapple trees in her portion of the agricultural lot by cutting and pulling the plants out. The private respondent also witnessed the petitioners destroy the barbed wire fence. After a failed attempt at conciliation before the barangay, the private respondent filed this criminal case for malicious mischief against the petitioners.

(MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, pp. 2-6). ARGUMENTS I THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF WAS PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT TENANTS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. III THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT THE ACT OF DAMAGING THE PLANTS WERE DONE FOR THE SAKE OF DAMAGING THEM DISCUSSION The RTC did not err in ruling that all the elements of malicious mischief was proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
-----------------------------------------

The Revised Penal Code punishes the crime of malicious mischief as follows:

Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. Any person who shall deliberately cause 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 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 an act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction; 3. That the act of damaging anothers property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it. (Valeroso v People, 412 SCRA 257, 29 September 2003). As correctly ruled by both the MTC and the RTC, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime of Malicious Mischief. The acts of destruction committed by the petitioners were duly proven as ruled by the RTC, to wit; Having resolved ownership of the trees and the plants, the court a quo proceeded to determine the commission of the crime which, as stated relied on the testimonies of the private complainant Melanie and Elsa Sarmiento who personally witnessed the destruction of the trees and the plants. The court a quo observed them to be credible having categorically testified without hesitation that both the accused-spouses used a scythe in cutting down the banana and orange (dalandan) trees and pineapple plants. There is therefore no reason for this court, acting as an appellate court to disturb the trial courts findings of facts which should be accorded with great respect, having had the opportunity to observe

the witnesses personally and determine impression their demeanor on the stand. xxx xxx xxx

firsthand

To further substantiate her testimony, Melanie identified photographs depicting the ruined trees and plants (Exhibits D-D-3) to prove the issue in dispute. For purposes of admissibility, it has been sufficiently shown that these photographs were the accurate representation of the scene that they depict. Having established her presence at the scene, she has attested to these photographs as to their accuracy and authenticity as she was the one who took the pictures right after the incident. Accordingly, the claim that these photographs were not properly authenticated should likewise be rejected. (RTC Decision, 5 November 2012, pp. 3-4). From the foregoing, the testimony of the private complainant, corroborated by another witness, supplies the acts of destruction committed by petitioners within private complainants property. In the case of Magdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking Corporation, the Supreme Court had occasion to reiterate the well-entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit; The settled rule is that conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. (680 SCRA 251 [2012]). The appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses presented during the trial by the MTC should therefore be given strong weight

and more so in this case where the findings of the MTC has already been affirmed by the RTC. Such testimonies further find support in the photographs depicting the aftermath of the destruction. The strength of such object evidence cannot be overemphasized as held in the case of Pelonia v People, thus; Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. (521 SCRA 207 [2007]). The RTC did not err in ruling that the petitioners are not tenants of the subject property
-----------------------------------------

The petitioner, however, is of the argument that they are not liable for the crime committed since the plants destroyed were located in the portion of the land under their tenancy (Amended Petition for Review, 14 March 2013, pp. 7-9). The argument is without merit. The People sustains the decision of the RTC, quoted as follows: The DARABs decision, which made the basis for accused defense, cannot be clearer. It mentions only the landholdings of the properties covered by OCT No. P-

10

5160(M) and ICT No. 5159(M) to be the subject of the tenancy relationship but not the property of the private complainant which is covered by separate Original Certificate of Title No. P-5156(M). Neither the latter title was considered in the resolution of the issues therein. Hence, it is safe to conclude that the right to cultivate the property as bona fide tenants did not cover the property of the private complainant. Consequently, a presumption comes to the fore that the banana and orange trees and pineapple plants belong to the private complainant. In fact, no less than the accused Amelia Punzal herself admitted during trial that she is not a tenant of the private complainant Melanie Palad (TSN, p. 3, February 22, 2012). The supposition therefore of the accusedspouses that their act of clearing and plowing is in accordance with their legal obligation to cultivate the land of the private complainant as bona fide tenants should be rejected and can only be taken as a mere subterfuge to have an excuse on the present criminal charge. (RTC Decision, 5 November 2012, page 3). Indeed, the appellants argument rests on the foundation that petitioners are the established owners of the subject property. Such fact was never established in this case. As determined by the RTC in this case, however, and by the DARAB in the administrative proceedings, the petitioners are not the legal tenants of the subject property. There is therefore no ground to support the petitioners argument that they were merely exercising their duties as tenants in clearing the plants located in the subject property. The RTC did not err in ruling that the act of damaging the plants were done for the sake of damaging them.
-----------------------------------------

11

Lastly, the petitioners posit that the RTC erred in interpreting the testimony of one of the petitioners of being hurt as indication of anger so as to satisfy the third element of the crime that the act of damaging the property is only for the sake of damaging it (Amended Petition for Review, 14 March 2013, pp. 10-11). The argument fails to persuade. Again, as ruled by the Supreme Court in the aforequoted case of Magdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The Manila Banking Corporation (supra, page 7), the trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses being the trier of facts. Having observed the petitioner Amelia Punzal before the witness stand, the RTCs ruling that the act was committed in anger should be given substantial weight by this honorable court. The acts of petitioner Amelia Punzal can be used to convict petitioner Martin Punzal since there is a finding that petitioners acted in conspiracy in committing the offense charged. The MTC ruled as follows: The conspiracy of the two accused, in the same vein, has been sufficiently established. The act of Mario Punzal in plowing the pineapple plants while Amelia Punzal performed the cutting of banana trees are manners in pursuance to a common purpose. Their actions clearly import conspiracy as a mode of destroying the fruit plants belonging to the private complainant. (MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, page 8). The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the Supreme Court as follows: For indeed, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment that not all the accused took part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for all

12

the acts of the others done in the furtherance of the conspiracy. (People v Hasan et al., 199 SCRA 421, [1999], citing the case of People v Obando) Therefore, petitioners argument that granting arguendo that the fact that petitioner Amelia Punzals act was done in anger cannot be used to convict co-petitioner Martin Punzal is of no moment since both petitioners conspired to commit the offense for which they were charged. Being in conspiracy, Amelia Punzal is equally liable to the acts committed by Martin Punzal. Absent any cogent reason to reverse, petitioners conviction must stand, hence the instant Petition should be denied. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Petition be DENIED for lack of merit and that the appealed DECISION be AFFIRMED in toto. Makati City for the City of Manila, 07 May 2013.