0 HigitPa SusunodnaBlog BumuongBlog Magsignin

PhilippineLawsandCases.
ManuelJ.LasernaJr.,LasernaCuevaMercaderLawOffices,LasPinasCity,Philippines.

FollowbyEmail Monday,November28,2016 SearchThisBlog

Emailaddress...Submit Search
SampleCounterAppeal
AboutMe Memorandum BlogArchive
2017(370)
Thisisacounterappealmemorandumpreparedbyour
lawofficeinvolvingacriminalcase.Wearesharingitto 2016(712)
ourreaders/followersforlegalresearchpurposes. December
PhilippineLaws (110)
andCasesManuel
November
J.LasernaJr. REPUBLICOFTHE (51)
LasPinasCity,Metro PHILIPPINES
Sample
Manila,Philippines xxxJUDICIALREGION "Comment"
MANUELJ.LASERNA REGIONALTRIALCOURT to"Offerof
JR.Email: xxx,xxx Evidence"
lcmlaw@gmail.com. BRANCHxxx Sample
Tel/Fax..+632 expanded
8462539and8725443. VERIFIED
SeeGoogleMapsfor RESPONSE
directionsLaserna inasmall
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, claim...
CuevaMercaderLaw
Plaintiff,
Offices.PROFILE: Sample
Crim. Constructio
Partner,Laserna
CuevaMercaderLaw CaseNo.xxx nContract
Offices.Admittedtothe (Ref.:
Prejudicial
Barin1985(3rdplacer, Crim.CaseNo.xxx Questionin
1984barexam).Law VersusMTC Criminal
professorofFEU, xxx,xxx) Case
sample
Manila,1985to2006 For:Malicious Repl...
(ret.).Educ.:ABJourn., Mischief.
UP,Diliman,QC,1975 xxx, Sample
BachelorofLaws "motionfor
xxx, disqualificati
(LL.B.),cumlaude,
xxx, on"ofa
FEU,1984Masterof governme...
xxx,
Laws(LL.M.),UST,
xxx, Sample
(cand.),Manila[asFEU
fellow,19982000]. xxx, Counter
xxx, Appeal
Honors:3rdplacer, Memorandu
1984BarExams xxx, m
(90.95%only22% Accused.
passed)Meralcopre xx Sample
Position
lawscholarCocofed Paperina
lawscholarCocofed laborcase
managementscholar PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
(AIM,Makati)FEU Ombudsman
Plaintiff, hitsrevision
fellow(LLM,UST).Bar
Crim. ofhistory
leaderinsouthern amid
CaseNo.16174
MetroManilaarea Marcos
(Ref.:
since1995.Founded bur...
LasPinasCityBar Crim.CaseNo.xxx
Assn(2001).Servedas VersusMTC Decriminalizat
director/sec./vicepres., Xxx,Xxx) ionor
IBPPPLMCh.,1995 For:Malicious outright
2007. legalization
Mischief. ofmari...
Viewmycomplete xxx,
profile Dontlet
xxx,
scammers
xxx, takeaway
PopularPosts xxx, yourholiday
xxx, cheer...
Qualifiedtheftdefined
properpenalty xxx, Deathofparty
explained xxx, afterfinality
ItemNo"xxx.The xxx, ofjudgment
elementsofthecrime ofnulli...
xxx.
oftheftasprovidedfor
xxx. Good
inArticle3089ofthe constitution
RevisedPenalCode xxx.
alproposals
areasfollows:(1)t... Accused. fromformer
xx Comelec...
"Condemn
DuterteEvenIf International
YoureA Criminal
Supporter.Yourman COUNTERAPPEALMEMORANDUM Courturged
maywinandbecome toprobe
presidentbutinthe Dutert...
processyouhavelost. THE PROSECUTION, by undersigned counsel,
Inmakinghimawinner respectfullystates: Presidential
youhavemade immunity
yourselfaloser." fromsuit
I.STATEMENTOFTHECASE underthe
SeeXCondemn
DuterteEvenIfYoure 1987Con...
ASupporter"xxx.By: This appeal involves two cases a quo decided by the
AFUGITIVE
CarlosS.Hernandez MunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)ofXxx,Xxx: FOREFEIT
Jr.Whenheadvocated
SHIS
forextrajudicialkillings
(a)CriminalCaseNo.xxx.Theeightaccused RIGHTTO
,...
PRIVACY
inthiscasewere:
THROUGH
Oraldefamation, ...
slanderG.R.No. i.xxx
160351 PUBLIC
ii.xxx FIGURE,
SeeG.R.No.160351
"xxx.Theissuesare: iii.xxx DEFINED.
(1)whethertheCourt iv.xxx
ofAppealserredin RIGHTOF
v.xxx PRIVACY
sustainingthe
vi.xxx
convictionofpetitioner
vii.xxxand Freedomof
...
speechand
viii.xxx. expression
Estafa protects
(deceit/swindling) commerci...
(b)CriminalCaseNo.xxx.Theelevenaccused
underArt.315,Rev.
PenalCode inthiscasewere: Principleof
Forlegalresearch "complemen
purposesofmy i.xxx tarity"ofthe
readers,mayIshare Internationa
ii.xxx
thejurisprudentialpart ...
ofamotionfor iii.xxx
reconsiderationIhave iv.xxx Writof
justfiledwiththe... amparo,
v.xxx habeasdata
vi.xxx The
Estafasample
vii.xxx failureof
counteraffidavit gov...
Belowisasample viii.xxx
counteraffidavit ix.xxx "Totalityof
preparedbyAtty. x.xxxand evidence"
ManuelJ.LAsernaJr. rule
involvingEstafa xi.xxx.
undergoingpreliminary Doctrineof
investigationbef... The proceedings a quo before the Municipal Trial Court command
(MTC)ofxxx,xxxmaybesummarizedasfollows: responsibilit
Titlingofpubliclands y
Forpurposesoflegal
researchofforeign 1. On April 4, 2013 two separate Informations for Presidential
readersvisitingthis immunity
MaliciousMischiefwerefiledagainsttheeightaccused
blog,onthesubjectof fromsuit
inCriminal Case No. xxx and the eleven accused in
thelegalsystem
CriminalCaseNo.xxx. Grantof
involvingthetitlingof
interim
publicla...
reliefs,
2. The ultimate facts alleged in the Information filed protection
Jurisdictionof withthecourtaquoinCriminalCaseNo.xxxagainst ordersin
Philippinecourts wri...
theeightaccusedwereasfollows:
Iampresentingbelow
abriefdigestofthe Writof
jurisdictionofPhilippine (a) On January 27, 2013 the accused habeasdata
courtsascontainedin destroyedandremovedtheTarpaulinPosters
BATASPAMBANSA Thewritof
of the newly elected directors/officers of the xxx amparois
Blg.129,asamended.
forthe... SubdivisionHomeownersAssociation(xxx). an
extraordinar
yand
CRIMINAL (b)Theintentoftheaccusedwastocause indepen...
NEGLIGENCEOF
damagetothesaidpropertyofxxx.
DRIVERSAND Powersof
OPERATORS Solicitor
applicablelaws (c)Thefelonywascommittedbytheaccused Generalin
penaltiescivil withdeliberateandmaliciousintent. criminal
liabilities. casesG....
Recklessimprudence
visvissimple (d) The accused were motivated by hate, Extrajudicial
negligence.Art. anger,revengeorillmotive. foreclosure
365oftheRevised special
PenalCodeprovides powerof
thatreckless (e)Thevalueoftheactualdamagesustained attorn...
imprudencecons... bytheprivatecomplainantXXXamountedtoP2,
070.00. Intemperate
language
Contracttosellvs.
and
contractofsale
(f)Theaccusedactedinconspiracywith unprofessio
explainedG.R.No.
eachother. nalbehavior
188064
o...
G.R.No.188064(click
link)"xxx.TheCourts (g) The private complainant XXX was Bailinnon
RulingThepetition bailable
representedbyitsdirectors/officersXxxP.Xxx,
lacksmerit.TheCourt offenses
agreeswiththeruling XxxN.Xxx,andXxxC.Xxx. A.M.No.
of... RTJ1423...
3. The ultimate facts alleged in the Information filed
EstafaandBlg.22 Psychological
withthecourtaquoinCriminalCaseNo.xxxagainst incapacity
Complaintw/lawsand
jurisprudence. the eleven accused therein were basically similar to tomarry
those alleged against the eight accused in Criminal Villalonvs
Iwishtosharea
Vi...
criminalcomplaintfor CaseNo.xxx, supra, but with a different date of the
EstafaandBP22thatI commission of the second felony (i.e., February 2, Retiring
preparedrecently,with justices
focusonthelegal 2013) and a different amount of the value of the
Duterteto
researchaspect subjectpropertydestroyed,damagedandremoved,to appoint10
thereof,fort... wit: newjusti...

SenLeilade
Links (a) On February 2, 2013 the accused Lima'sWrit
destroyedandremovedtheTarpaulinPosters ofHabeas
Ltigation,Appeals, Data
of the newly elected directors/officers of the xxx
JusticeSystem Petition...
LasernaCueva SubdivisionHomeownersAssociation(XXX).
MercaderLawOffices MELSTA.
MARIA|
Holdingthe
Followers Supreme
Court
Mgasumusubaybay (b)Theintentoftheaccusedwastocause Court
(188)Susunod account...
damagetothesaidpropertyofXXX.
Joint
(c)Thefelonywascommittedbytheaccused statementof
Liberal
withdeliberateandmaliciousintent.
Party
(d) The accused were motivated by hate, Senatorson
anger,revengeorillmotive. theP...

Whenweno
(e)Thevalueoftheactualdamagesustained longercry|
bytheprivatecomplainantXXXamountedtoP3, INQUIRER.
405.00. net
Sundin
Whena
(f)Theaccusedactedinconspiracywith Populist
Demagogue
eachother.
Takes
PowerThe
(g) The private complainant XXX was NewYo...
representedbyitsdirectors/officersXxxP.Xxx,
SCreinstates
XxxN.Xxx,andXxxC.Xxx. lawyer
previously
4.TheeightaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.xxxwere disbarred
forCPR...
also the same accused in Criminal Case No. xxx,
exceptthatinthelattercase(CriminalCaseNo.xxx) Thetruth
thefollowingadditionalthreeaccusedwereimpleaded aboutLoida
Nicolas
ascoaccused: Lewis

Howthe
(a)xxx
Judicialand
(b)xxxand BarCouncil
(c)xxx. works

Next3years
5. On May 10, 2013 the accused were arraigned. 'criticaltest'
Theyenteredapleaofnotguilty. forJudicial
andBar...
6.Thetwocaseswerereferredbythecourtaquofor Sec.23,Rule
mandatoryCourtAnnexMediation(CAM)onMay17 119,
and 24, 2013 and for Judicial Dispute Resolution Demurrerto
Evidencein
(JDR)onSeptember10,2013. Crimina...

7. No compromise was reached by and among the The

Scarboroug
partiesduringtheCAMandtheJDR. hvivendi

WhyDuterte
8.OnOctober18,2013thePreTrialofthetwocases
wantsto
were conducted and terminated. (The pretrial was giveMarcos
originallysetonOctober3,2013). ahero's
burial...
9.Thethreeprosecutionwitnesseswere: Constitutional
Law(Spring
(a)XxxXxx 2015)
YouTube
(b)XxxXxxand
(c)xxx. Torture,Law,
andWar
Conference
10.Thecourta quo, in an Order, dated May 14, 2015, YouTube
admitted in evidence the following exhibits for the
Evidence
prosecutionbasedonanoralofferofevidence:
Lectures
Prof.
CharlesH.

RoseIII
 (a)ExhibitA.JointAffidavitComplaint, RoseIII
dated March 12, 2013, of Xxx P. Xxx, Xxx N. Yo...
XxxandXxxC.Xxx. Roadsclosed,
contingency
plansready
(b) Exhibit B. Pinagsamasamang
for2016
Salaysay, dated March 12, 2013, of xxx. xxx, Bar...
xxx,andxxx.
OPINION:
Supreme
(c) Exhibit C to C26. Twenty seven Courtinthe
photographsoftheXXXpropertydestroyedand dock|ABS
removed(TarpaulinPoster). CBNNews

ARMM
(d)ExhibitD.Certification,datedMarch Regional
5,2013,issuedbythePhilippineNationalPolice Governor
Mujiv
(PNP),xxx,xxx. Hataman
has
(e) Exhibit E. Barangay Blotter of endorsed...
Barangayxxx,datedJanuary28,2013. Adoption
legaleffects
(f)ExhibitF.MinutesofTanggapanng of.
LuponofBarangayxxx,xxx,xxx.
October(27)

(g)ExhibitGtoG2.ThreeReceiptsof September
ExpensesfortheTarpaulinPosters. (16)

August(36)
(h)ExhibitHtoH1.TwoReceiptsforthe
July(40)
installationoftheTarpaulinPosters.
June(24)
(i)ExhibitI.Letter,datedFebruary8,
May(34)
2013,oftheBarangayChairmanxxx.
April(92)
(j) ExhibitJ to J1. Resolution No. March(91)
003213byXXX,datedMarch3,2013.
February
(109)
(k)ExhibitK.JudicialAffidavit,dated
November26,2013,ofXxxXxx. January(82)

2015(778)
(l)ExhibitL.JudicialAffidavit,dated
June20,2014,ofXxxXxx. 2014(339)

2013(468)
(m) Exhibit M. Judicial Affidavit, dated
June20,2014,ofFelicianoXxxJuan. 2012(670)

2011(489)
(n)ExhibitN.JudicialAffidavit, dated
2010(285)
June20,2014,ofxxx.
2009(235)
11.TheprosecutionresteditscaseonMay14,2015.
2008(182)

12.Thedefensepresentedonlyonewitness,xxx. 2007(114)

13.InanOrder,datedNovember5,2015, the court a TotalPageviews

quo admitted in evidence the following defense
5,473,509
exhibits based on an oral offer of evidence by the
defensecounsel:
 (a)Exhibits1,1A1F,1FA.Noticeofthe
Decision,datedAugust3,2010,issuedbythe
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB).

(b)Exhibits2,2A.Resolution,datedJune
17,2013,issuedbytheOfficeofthePresident.

(c) Exhibits 3, 3A. Resolution, dated

September 6, 2013, issued by the Office of the
President.

(d)Exhibits4to4F.Certification,dated
September30,2013,issuedbytheHLURB.

(e) Exhibits 5 to 5C. Withdrawal of

Appeal, dated February 6, 2015, by Atty. xxx,
counselforXxxXxx.

(f)Exhibits6to6D.NoticeofDecision,
dated December 18, 2013, issued by the
HLURB.

(g)Exhibits7to7A.Certification,dated
February 23, 2015, issued by the Court of
Appeals(CA).

(h)Exhibits8to8A.Certification,dated
February23,2015,issuedbytheCA.

(i) Exhibits 9 to 9F, and 9F1. Judicial

Affidavit, dated September 14, 2015, of sole
defensewitnessxxx.

(j)Exhibits10to10B,and10B1.Letter,
dated September 16, 2015, by Atty. Antonio
BernardooftheHLURB.

14. The prosecution presented one rebuttal witness,

XxxXxx,thevicepresidentofXXX.

15.Thefollowingrebuttalevidencefortheprosecution
wereadmittedonDecember11,2015 by the court a
quo:

(a)ExhibitARebuttal.JudicialAffidavit,
datedNovember5,2015,byXxxXxx.

(b) Exhibit BRebuttal. Ex Parte

Manifestation, dated October 9, 2015, by
BengtFroberg,et.al.inre:HLURBNCRHOA
xxx.

(c) Exhibit CRebuttal. Notice of

Resolution, dated October 6, 2015, issued by
 theCAinre:CAGRSPNo.xxx.

16.Thetrialofthetwocasesaquowasterminated on
December11,2015.

17. On the aforementioned date the cases were

submittedfordecision.

II.FACTSOFTHECASE

18. As shown in the records of these cases, the facts

from the vantage of the prosecution evidence in
chiefarestatedhereinbelow.

18.1.OnDecember31,2012anelectionofthe
membersandofficersoftheboardofdirectors
of the homeowners association of the xxx
SubdivisioninXxx,Xxx(i.e.,XxxSubdivision
Homeowners Association Inc. [XXX]) was
conducted.

18.2.ThelineuporgroupofXxxXxxandXxx
Xxxwoninthesaidelection.

18.3.Thenewlyelectedboard/managementof
XXXdecidedtopubliclyannouncetheresults
ofthesaidelectiontothehomeownersofthe
villagefortheirinformationandreference.

18.4. The new board caused the design,

production and installation of the appropriate
TarpaulinPostersforthesaidpurpose.

18.5.Thetarpaulinposterswerecausedtobe
attached by the new board at the back of
Tribikes plying the routes inside the village
and to be installed at conspicuous places
therein.

18.6.Morespecifically,onJanuary27,2013the
new board caused to be installed two
tarpaulinpostersattheapproachofthemain
gateofthevillage.

18.7. In the evening of January 27, 2013, at

about11:00PM,FelicianoXxxJuan,Nolasco
Xxxtos and other tribike drivers saw the
accused

xxx,
xxx,
xxx,and
xxx
 destroy the two tarpaulin posters at the
approachofthemaingateofthevillage.

Then,thesaidaccuseddroveawayinthe
directionofthetownproperofXxx,Xxx.

18.8.Theincidentwasdiscoveredthenextday
by prosecution witnesses Xxx Xxx and Xxx
Xxx.

18.9. Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx caused the

annotationoftheincident

in the Police Blotter of the Philippine

NationalPolice(PNP)ofXxx,Xxxand
in the Barangay Blotter of Barangay
xxx,Xxx,Xxx.

18.10.OnFebruary2,2013XxxXxxandXxxXxx
installed three tarpaulin posters at the same
site to replace the two tarpaulin posters
destroyed by the aforementioned accused in
theeveningofJanuary27,2013.

18.11.Theyplacedtheminahigherpositionso
thattheaccusedcouldnoteasilyremoveand
destroy them just in case they attempt to do
so.

18.12.Intheeveningofthesaiddate(February
2, 2013), at about 10:00 PM, prosecution
witnesses Feliciano Xxx Juan and Nolasco
Xxxtos saw the eleven accused in Criminal
CaseNo.xxx,namely,

xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxxand
xxx.

destroy the newly installed three tarpaulin

posters.

The accused used a sickle/scythe (karit)

with a long handle to slash the tarpaulin
posters.
 Theyusedaladdertoattempttodismantle
the wood frames of the tarpaulin posters
buttheyfailedtodosobecausethewood
frameswerefirmlyinstalled

18.13. Prosecution witnesses Xxx Xxx and Xxx

Xxxdiscoveredtheincidentthenextday.

18.14.Theycausedtheannotationoftheincident

in the Police Blotter of the PNP Xxx,

Xxxand
in the Barangay Blotter of Barangay
XxxXxx,Xxx,Xxx.

18.15. They also filed a complaint before the

OfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorofXxx.

18.16. They incurred a total damage of P5,

475.00 for the value of the tarpaulin posters
destroyed.

18.17.ProsecutionwitnessXxxtestifiedthatxxx
paid xxx to dismantle the remaining wood
frames.

18.17.1.Xxxreceivedtheinformation
fromXxxhimself.

18.17.2.XxxisabrotherofXxx.

18.18.OnMay14,2015,theprosecutionrestedits
case.

18.19. The Court a quo admitted in evidence its

documentaryevidencemarkedasExhibit A
to Exhibit N, inclusive. (See Paragraph 10,
supra).

19. As shown in the records of these cases, the facts

fromthevantageofthedefenseevidenceinchiefare
statedhereinbelow.

19.1. Only one witness testified for the

defense, namely, coaccused Eveline
Bautista.

19.2.Shestatedthattheprivatecomplainants
Xxx Xxx, et. al. were not members in good
standingofXXX.

19.3.Shestatedthattheprivatecomplainants
had never been members of the board of
directorsofXXX.
 19.4.Shestatedthattheprivatecomplainants
had filed five election protests against the
electionoftheaccusedasdirectors/officersof
XXX.

19.5. She stated that three of the said five

election protests had been dismissed by the
HousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoard.

19.6.Shestatedthatthetwocasespendingin
the Court of Appeals (CA) had been
withdrawnbytheprivatecomplainants.

19.7.Shestatedthattheprivatecomplainants
had never won any single election in XXX
since2008.

19.8. On November 5. 2015, the defense

resteditscase.

19.9.TheCourtaquoadmittedinevidencethe
defense exhibits marked as Exhibit 1 to
Exhibit10B1,inclusive.(SeeParagraph 13,
supra).

20.Asshownintherecordsofthesecases,thefactsfrom
the vantage of the rebuttal evidence of the
prosecutionarestatedhereinbelow.

20.1. The sole rebuttal witness of the

prosecutionwasXxxXxx.

20.2. He stated that the testimony of the sole

defense witness, i.e., the coaccused xxx, as
digested above (Paragraph 19, supra) dealt
purely on issues that refer to the internal
affairs of the homeowners association
(XXX).

20.3.Thoseinternalissueswerethesubjectof
theseparateCommentthathadbeenfiledby
the private complainants with the HLURB
CommissionerandCEOxxx.

20.4. He stated that the pending appeals were

withdrawn by the private complainants
(appellants)forbeingmootandacademic.

20.5.HestatedthatthesaidCAappealswere
not resolved on their merits for being moot
andacademic.

20.6. He stated that sole defense witness xxx

presented only two of the five election
protests.
 20.7.Hestatedthattheremainingthreecases
werethesubjectoftheHLURBOrders,dated
March6,2014andJune16,2014.

20.7.1.Theywerestillpendingand
had not been resolved yet by the
HLURB as of the time of the
testimonies of defense witness xxx
andprosecutionwitnessXxxXxx.

20.8. The Court a quo rightfully rejected the

authenticityandprobativevalueofExhibits10
to10B,and10B1(Letter,datedSeptember
16, 2015, by Atty. xxx of the HLURB), the
same not having been identified by the sole
defensewitnessxxxoranyotherwitness.

20.9. Assuming arguendo that the private

complainantsXxxXxxandXxxXxx,whohad
paid for and caused the installation of the
subject tarpaulin posters, were allegedly not
legitimate directors/officers of XXX and that
they had no the legal authority to announce
the election of their lineup or group to the
homeowners through the subject tarpaulin
posters, nonetheless, the tarpaulin posters
belongedtoandwereownedbyXxxandXxx
asthepurchasersthereof.

20.9.1.Theaccusedhadnolegalright
to destroy damage and remove the
same.

III.ISSUE

21.Themainissueinthisappealis:

Whetherthefelonychargedagainstthe
accusedappellants in the above
captioned two criminal have been duly
proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonabledoubtasrequiredbylaw.

IV.DISCUSSION

THETWOCOUNTSOF
THEFELONYOF
MALICIOUSMISCHIEF
WEREDULYPROVEDBY
THEPROSECUTION
BEYONDREASONABLE
DOUBT
22.Theprosecutionrespectfullysubmitsthatithasproven
beyondreasonabledoubtthetwocountsofMalicious
MischiefaschargedinthetwoInformationsfiledwiththe
courtaquo.

23.Theprosecutionrespectfullysubmitsthattheappealed
Decision,datedJanuary6,2016,ofthecourtaquoshould
beupheldbythisHonorableCourtandthattheinstant
appealbytheaccusedbedismissedforutterlackof
merit.

24.Thedefensehadmiserablyfailedtodisprovetheelements
ofthefelonyofMaliciousMischief.

25.Thesoledefenseofalloftheaccusedfocused,as
presentedbytheironeandonlywitnessxxx,reliedonutterly
irrelevantandimmaterialmatters,thatis,thattheprivate
complainantswereallegedlynotthelegitimate
directors/officersofXXX.

25.1.Thesaiddefensereferredsolelyto
internalelectionissuesintheassociation.

26.Thedefenseineffectarguedthatbecausetheprivate
complainantswereallegedlynotthelegitimate
directors/officersofXXXfromtheirpointofview,therefore
theaccusedhadthelegalauthoritytodestroy,damage,and
removethetarpaulinpostersthattheprivatecomplainants
hadpurchasedcausedtobeandinstalledasan
announcementtothehomeownersabouttheirelectiontothe
boardoftheassociation.

27.Theaccusedputthelawintheirownhands.

28.Theyneverwaitedforthefinalresolutionofanyandall
electionissuesthenpendingbeforetheHLURBandtheCA,
assumingarguendothatthesamewererelevantand
materialtotheinstantcases.

29.Assumingarguendothattheaccusedwerethelawful
directors/officersofXXX,theydidnothavethelegalauthority
underthelawtoremove,destroyanddamagethesubject
tarpaulinposterswhichwerepurchasedandcausedtobe
installedbytheprivatecomplainantsforalegitimate
purpose,thatis,toannouncetothehomeownerstheir
electionasdirectors/officersoftheassociation.

30.TheCourtaquodidnotcommitandseriousandreversible
errorsinitsfindingsandconclusionsthatwarrantareversal
ormodificationofitsDecision,datedJanuary8,2016,bythis
HonorableCourtbywayofordinaryappeal.
31.Theprosecutionherebyadoptsentoto,byincorporation
andreference,allthefindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw
oftheCourtaquoasstatedinPage3toPage5ofits
appealedDecision,themainpartsofwhicharedigested
hereinbelow.

31.1.TheelementsofMaliciousMischiefare:

Theoffenderdeliberatelydamaged
thepropertyofanother
Theactdoesnotconstitutearsonor
othercrimesinvolvingdestructionof
property
Theactofdamaginganothers
propertywascommittedmerelyforthe
sakeofdamagingit.

31.2.Theactofdamagingpresupposesthat
theoffenderactedwithhate,revenge,or
otherevilmotive.

31.3.Itappearedthatthelineuporgroupofthe
privatecomplainantswasostensiblyelected
asdirectors/officersofXXXonDecember31,
2012.

31.4.Theprivatecomplainantsprocuredthe
twosetsoftarpaulinposters(January27,
2013andFebruary2,2013)withtheirown
fundstoannouncetheirelection.

31.4.1.TheXXXhadnofundsatthe
timeforthepurpose.

31.4.2.Theprivatecomplainants
expectedtobereimbursedofthe
valueofthetarpaulinpostersindue
timebytheassociationwhenits
futureresourceswouldallow.

31.5.Theaccusedfailedtorefutethe
testimoniesofalloftheprosecution
witnessesprovingthespecificelementsof
thefelonyofMaliciousMischief.

31.6.Thesoledefenseoftheaccusedwas
thattheprivatecomplainantswere
allegedlynotthelegitimate
directors/officersoftheassociationand
thattheyhadneverwonanyelectionin
theassociationsince2008.

31.7.Theaccusedwereunitedintheir
communaldesigntodestroydamageand
 removethetarpaulinpostersoftheprivate
complainants.

31.7.1.Someofthemdestroyed,
removedanddamagedthe
tarpaulinposterswhilesomeof
themusedtheircarstocollect,
hideandtransportthedestroyed
anddamagedtarpaulinposters.

31.8.Conspiracyhadbeenprovenbythe
prosecution.

31.9.Inrethedestructionofthetarpaulin
postersonJanuary27,2013,theCourtaquo
foundthataccusedxxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,
xxx,xxx,movedbyhate,anger,disgust,and
evilmotive,conspiredandactuallydestroyed,
damaged,andremoved,thetarpaulinposters
onthesaiddate.

31.10.Inrethedestructionofthetarpaulin
postersonFebruary2,2013,theCourtaquo
foundthataccusedxxx,xxx,xxx,andxxx,
movedbyhate,anger,disgust,andevil
motive,conspiredandactuallydestroyed,
damaged,andremoved,thetarpaulinposters
onthesaiddate.

31.11.Thedefensepresentedirrelevant
exhibitstoprovethattheprivate
complainantswereallegedlyillegitimate
directors/officersoftheassociation.The
exhibitsreferredtotheelectionsheldon
March30,2008,April19,2009,and
December19,2010.

31.12.TheCourtaquorightfullydidnottake
judicialnoticeoftherecordsofthesaid
electionprotests.

APPLICABLELAW

32.Articles327and329ofChapter9oftheRevisedPenal
Codecontaintherelevantprovisionsonthefelonyof
MALICIOUSMISCHIEFapplicabletothisappeal.

33.Article327oftheCodeprovidesthatanypersonwhoshall
deliberatelycausethepropertyofanotheranydamage
notfallingwithinthetermsofthenextprecedingchapter
shallbeguiltyofmaliciousmischief.
34.Art.329oftheCodeprovidesforthepenaltyforthefelony
ofMaliciousMischiefintheinstantappealwhichinvolvedan
amountinexcessofOneThouxxxdPesos(P1,000.00)as
thevalueofthesubjectpropertydamaged,destroyed
andremovedbytheaccused:

xxx.

1.Byarrestomayorinitsmediumand
maximumperiods,ifthevalueofthe
damagecausedexceeds1,000pesos

Xxx.

APPLICABLEJURISPRUDENCE

35.Theprosecutionherebyextensivelyquotesthe
applicablecaseofMARIOVALEROSO,petitioner,
vs.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent,
G.R.No.149718.September29,2003insupportof
itstheorythatanaccusedwhodestroysordamages
aprivatepropertywithoutlawfulauthorityisguiltyof
MaliciousMischief.Thiscasedemonstratesthe
elementsofthefelonyofMaliciousMischief.Thus:

xxx.

Thepetitioneradmitsthathedeliberately
demolishedMrs.Castillosnipahut.He,
however,contendsthatthethirdelement
ofthecrimeofmaliciousmischief,i.e.,that
theactofdamaginganotherspropertybe
committedmerelyforthesakeof
damagingit,isnotpresentinthiscase.He
maintainsthathedemolishedMrs.
Castillosnipahuttosafeguardtheinterest
ofhisemployer,thePNB,andfornoother
reason.Hismotivewaslawfulandthat
therewasnomaliceincausingthe
damagetotheprivatecomplainants
property.Inotherwords,hedidnotactout
ofhatred,revengeorotherevilmotive.

Invokingparagraph5,Article11ofthe
RevisedPenalCode,thepetitionerposits
thatheactedinthelawfulexerciseofa
rightineffectingthedemolition.Hethus
praysthathebeabsolvedofanycriminal
liabilitytherefor.
Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.

Theelementsofthecrimeofmalicious
mischiefunderArticle327oftheRevised
PenalCodeare:

1.Thattheoffenderdeliberatelycaused
damagetothepropertyofanother

2.Thatsuchactdoesnotconstitute
arsonorothercrimesinvolving
destruction

3.Thattheactofdamaginganothers
propertybecommittedmerelyforthe
sakeofdamagingit.

Contrarytothepetitionerscontention,all
theforegoingelementsarepresentinthis
case.First,headmitsthathe
deliberatelydemolishedthenipahutof
Mrs.Castillo.Second,thedemolitiondoes
notconstitutearsonoranyothercrime
involvingdestruction.Third,ascorrectly
foundbytheCA:

Petitionerwasappointedcaretaker
ofthesubjectlotonAugust21,
1996.Upontheotherhand,private
complainantconstructedherhut
thereononlyinApril1997.Such
beingthecase,petitionerwasnot
justifiedinsummarilyandextra
judiciallydemolishingprivate
complainantsstructure.Asitis,
petitionerproceedednotsomuch
tosafeguardthelotasitistogive
venttohisangeranddisgustover
Castillosdisregardoftheno
trespassingsignheplaced
thereon.Indeed,hisactof
summarilydemolishingthehouse
smacksofhispleasureincausing
damagetoit(UnitedStatesvs.
Gerale,4Phil.218).

Neithercanthepetitionerrightfullyinvoke
paragraph5,Article11oftheRevised
 PenalCodewhichstates:

Art.11.Justifyingcircumstances.
Thefollowingdonotincurany
criminalliability:

...

5.Anypersonwhoactsinthe
fulfillmentofadutyorinthelawful
exerciseofarightoroffice.

Therequisitesoftheforegoingjustifying
circumstanceare(1)thattheaccused
actedintheperformanceofadutyorin
thelawfulexerciseofarightand(2)
thattheinjurycausedortheoffense
committedbethenecessaryconsequence
ofthedueperformanceofdutyorthe
lawfulexerciseofsuchrightoroffice.

Inthiscase,asheldnotonlybytheMTC
butalsotheRTCandtheCA,the
petitionerdeliberatelydemolishedthe
propertyofMrs.Castillowithoutany
lawfulauthority.Thus,whilethefirst
requisiteispresent,thesecondis
unavailing.The

petitionerwasnotactinginthe
fulfillmentofhisdutywhenhetookthe
lawintohisownhandsandsummarily
demolishedMrs.Castilloshut.Itbears
stressingthatthesaidhutwasconstructed
onthepropertyasearlyasApril1997.

Insum,thepetitionerhasfailedto
sufficientlyshowthattheappellatecourt
committedreversibleerrorintheassailed
decision.

Xxx.

36.AnotherapplicablecaseisTAGUINODVS.PEOPLEOF
THEPHILIPPINES,GRNO.185833,OCTOBER12,2011,
whichdemonstratestheelementsofthefelonyofMalicious
Mischief,towit:

xxx.
Whatreallygovernsthisparticularcaseis
thattheprosecutionwasabletoprovethe
guiltofpetitionerbeyondreasonable
doubt.Theelementsofthecrimeof
maliciousmischiefunderArticle327ofthe
RevisedPenalCodeare:

(1)Thattheoffenderdeliberately
causeddamagetothepropertyof
another

(2)Thatsuchactdoesnotconstitute
arsonorothercrimesinvolving
destruction

(3)Thattheactofdamaginganother's
propertybecommittedmerelyforthe
sakeofdamagingit.

Infindingthatalltheaboveelementsare
present,theMeTCrightlyruledthat:

Thefollowingwerenotdisputed:that
therewasacollisionbetweenthe
sideviewmirrorsofthetwo(2)
vehiclesthatimmediatelythereafter,
thewifeandthedaughterofthe
complainantalightedfromtheCRV
andconfrontedtheaccusedand,
thecomplainant,inviewofthe

hostileattitudeoftheaccused,
summonedhiswifeanddaughterto
entertheCRVandwhiletheywere
intheprocessofdoingso,the
accusedmovedandaccelerated
hisVitarabackwardasiftohit
them.

Theincidentinvolvingthe
collisionofthetwosideview
mirrorsisproofenoughto
establishtheexistenceofthe
elementofhate,revengeand
otherevilmotive.Here,the
accusedentertainedhate,revenge
andotherevilmotivebecauseto
 hismind,hewaswrongedbythe
complainantwhentheCRV
overtookhisVitarawhile
proceedingtowardtheboothto
paytheirparkingfee,asa
consequenceofwhich,theirside
viewmirrorscollided.Onthesame
occasion,thehoodofhisVitarawas
alsopounded,andhewas
badmouthedbythecomplainant's
wifeanddaughterwhenthey
alightedfromtheCRVtoconfront
himforthecollisionofthesideview
mirrors.Thesecircumstances
motivatedtheaccusedtopush
upwardtherampcomplainant'sCRV
untilitreachedthesteelrailingofthe
exitramp.ThepushingoftheCRV
bytheVitaraiscorroborated

bytheIncidentReportdatedMay26,
2002preparedbySORobert
Cambre,ShiftInChargeofthe
PowerPlantMall,aswellasthe
PoliceReport.xxx.

TheCAalsoaccuratelyobservedthatthe
elementsofthecrimeofmaliciousmischief
arenotwantinginthiscase,thus:

Contrarytothecontentionofthe
petitioner,theevidenceforthe
prosecutionhadprovenbeyond
reasonabledoubttheexistenceof
theforegoingelements.First,the
hittingofthebackportionofthe
CRVbythepetitionerwasclearly
deliberateasindicatedbythe
evidenceonrecord.Theversionof
theprivatecomplainantthatthe
petitionerchasedhimandthatthe
VitarapushedtheCRVuntilit
reachedthestairwayrailingwas
morebelievablethanthepetitioner's
versionthatitwasprivate
complainant'sCRVwhichmoved
backwardanddeliberatelyhitthe
Vitaraconsideringthesteepnessor
angleoftheelevationoftheP2exit
ramp.Itwouldbetooriskyand
dangerousfortheprivate
complainantandhisfamilytomove
theCRVbackwardwhenitwouldbe
hardforhimtoseehisdirectionas
 wellastocontrolhisspeedinview
ofthegravitationalpull.Second,the
actofdamagingtherearbumperof
theCRVdoesnotconstitutearsonor
othercrimesinvolvingdestruction.
Lastly,whentheVitarabumpedthe
CRV,thepetitionerwasjustgiving
venttohisangerandhateasa
resultofaheatedencounter
betweenhimandtheprivate
complainant.

Insum,thisCourtfindsthatthe
evidenceonrecordshowsthatthe
prosecutionhadproventheguiltof
thepetitionerbeyondreasonable
doubtofthecrimeofmalicious
mischief.Thisadjudicationisbutan
affirmationofthefindingofguiltof
thepetitionerbyboththelower
courts,theMeTCandtheRTC.

Xxx.

V.RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the instant appeal of the accused be
DISMISSEDforutterlackofmerit.

FURTHER,theprosecutionrespectfullypraysforsuch
andotherreliefsasmaybedeemedjustandequitableinthe
premises.

LasPinasCity,November21,2016.

LASERNACUEVAMERCADER
LAWOFFICES
PrivateProsecutor
Unit15,StarArcade,C.V.StarrAve.
PhilamlifeVillage,LasPinasCity1740
Tel.Nos.8725443&8462539
Email:lcmlaw@gmail.com
Blog:lcmlaw1.blogspot.com
Twitter.com/lcmlaw_ph
Facebook.com/lcmlawlaspinascity

Xxxxx

cc:
 ATTY.xxx
CounselforAccusedAppellants
Address:xxxx.
Reg.Rec.No.
DatePO

OFFICEOFTHEPROVINCIALPROSECUTOR
OFxxx
Address:Xxx,xxx
Reg.Rec.No.
DatePO

EXPLANATION

Acopyofthiscounterappealmemorandumisserved
on the Court, the Public Prosecutor, and the Defense
CounselviaLBCExpress/registeredmailduetothedistance
of their office addresses, due to the lack of field staff of
undersigned counsel to effect personal service, and due to
theurgencyoffilingthesame.

Xxxx

PostedbyPhilippineLawsandCasesManuelJ.Laserna
Jr.at5:38PM
Recommend this on Google

Linkstothispost
CreateaLink

NewerPost Home OlderPost

Watermarktheme.PoweredbyBlogger.