Punzal and Punzal v People (Comment-Draft)

7/28/2019 Punzal and Punzal v People (Comment-Draft)

1/12

1

Republic of the PhilippinesCOURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

EIGHTH DIVISION

MARIO PUNZAL AND AMELIA PUNZAL,Petitioners,

- versus - CA-GR. CR NO. 35392

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

x------------------------------------------------------x

C O M M E N T

Respondent, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by counsel, incompliance with the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated 11April 2013, a copy of which was received by the Office of theSolicitor General on 02 May 2013, respectfully submits thisComment and avers:

NATURE OF THE PETITION ANDSTATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the RevisedRules 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 Courtconvicting petitioner of the crime of Malicious Mischief.


2/12

2

Mario Punzal and Amelia Punzal (hereinafter petitioners) werecharged with the crime of Malicious Mischief under the followingInformation, dated 26 May 2000;

That on or about 2:00 pm May 18, 2000, inBarangay Partida, municipality of Norzagaray, Province ofBulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, the said accused, conspiring,confederating, and mutually helping one another, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously withintent to damage the fruitsplant owned by MELANIEMARTIN-PALAD by pulling and cutting the banana fruitstree, pineapple tree and orange trees with the use ofHALABAS with the value of P28, 000.00 to the damage

and prejudice of said MELANIE MARTIN-PALAD in thesum of P28, 000.00 Philippine Currency.

Contrary to Law.

(MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, page 1).

When arraigned, petitioner, duly assisted by counsel, entereda plea of not guilty. The case then proceeded to trial on the merits.

In its Decision dated 20 June 2012, the MTC convicted andsentenced petitioner of Malicious Mischief as follows:

WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoingdiscussions, the Court finds accused Mario Punzal andAmelia Punzal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Malicious Mischief defined and penalized underArticle 327 in relation to Article 329 of the Revised Penal

Code. There being no mitigating nor aggravatingcircumstances in attendance, both accused are herebysentenced to a straight penalty of IMPRISONMENT ofthree (3) months of Arresto Mayor.

The above named-accused are likewise ordered to payprivate complainant Melanie Martin-Palad jointly and


3/12

3

severally, the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) as damages.

(Ibid. page 9)

Petitioner then elevated the case to the RTC on the followinggrounds:

3.01 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELYERRED WHEN IT CONVICTED BOTH ACCUSEDDESPITE 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 BEINGTENANTED BY ACCUSED APPELLANTS.

3.01-b. THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT ACQUIRED THE

SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM HER MOTHER FRANCISCASANTIAGO DURING THE EXISTENCE OF TENANCYRELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS, THUS,SHE SHALL BE SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS ANDSUBSTITUTED TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF HER MOTHER

ON THE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FARMERTENANTS HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

3.02. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELYERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLEDOUBT DESPITE THE LACK OF THE ELEMENT OFCOMMITING THE ACT FOR THE SAKE OF DAMAGINGIT.

3.03. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY

ERRED WHEN IT AWARDED DAMAGES BY RELYING ONTHE PICTURES WHICH HOWEVER, WERE NOTAUTHENTICATED AS GENUINE NOR IT DEPICTSCOMPLETELY THE ALLEGED DESTROYED 300 BAANATREES, 100 ORANGE TREES AND 1,000 PINEAPPLEPLANTS.


4/12


5/12

5

(Amended Petition for Review, 14 March 2013, pp. 6-7).

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS

The following paraphrased summary of the facts are culledfrom the discussion of the MTC in its decision:

Petitioners are farmer tenants of the subjectagricultural land consisting of 22, 875 square metersowned by Francisca Santiago, mother of Melanie Palad-Martin (hereinafter referred to as private-respondent).

Private respondent bought a portion of her mothersland measuring 3,363 square meters after it wassubdivided. A separate title in the name of the privaterespondent covering such part was subsequently issued.

In a case filed by the petitioners before theDepartment Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board(DARAB), their status as tenants of the agricultural land

of Francisca Santiago was recognized and upheld by theadministrative court, the Court of Appeals, and theSupreme Court. The case, however, did not include theportion of the agricultural lot belonging to FranciscaSantiago which was bought by private respondent.

On 18 May 2000, around 2:00 in the afternoon, theprivate respondent saw the petitioners destroying thebanana, orange, pineapple trees in her portion of the

agricultural lot by cutting and pulling the plants out. Theprivate respondent also witnessed the petitioners destroythe barbed wire fence.

After a failed attempt at conciliation before thebarangay, the private respondent filed this criminal casefor malicious mischief against the petitioners.


6/12

6

(MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, pp. 2-6).

A R G U M E N T S

I

THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT ALL THEELEMENTS OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF WAS PROVENBY THE PROSECUTION BEYOND REASONABLEDOUBT.

II

THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT THEPETITIONERS ARE NOT TENANTS OF THE SUBJECTPROPERTY.

III

THE RTC DID NOT ERR IN RULING THAT THE ACTOF DAMAGING THE PLANTS WERE DONE FOR THE

SAKE OF DAMAGING THEM

DISCUSSION

The RTC did not err in rulingthat all the elements ofmalicious mischief was

proven by the prosecutionbeyond reasonable doubt.-----------------------------------------

The Revised Penal Code punishes the crime of maliciousmischief as follows:


7/12

7

Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief.Any person who shall deliberately cause the property ofanother any damage not falling within the terms of thenext preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious

mischief.

The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327of the Revised Penal Code are:

1.That the offender deliberately caused damage to theproperty of another;

2.That such an act does not constitute arson or othercrimes involving destruction;

3.That the act of damaging anothers property becommitted merely for the sake of damaging it.

(Valeroso v People, 412 SCRA 257, 29 September2003).

As correctly ruled by both the MTC and the RTC, theprosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime ofMalicious Mischief.

The acts of destruction committed by the petitioners were dulyproven as ruled by the RTC, to wit;

Having resolved ownership of the trees and theplants, the court a quo proceeded to determine thecommission of the crime which, as stated relied on thetestimonies of the private complainant Melanie and ElsaSarmiento who personally witnessed the destruction ofthe trees and the plants. The court a quo observed them

to be credible having categorically testified withouthesitation that both the accused-spouses used a scythein cutting down the banana and orange (dalandan) treesand pineapple plants. There is therefore no reason forthis court, acting as an appellate court to disturb thetrial courts findings of facts which should be accordedwith great respect, having had the opportunity to observe


8/12

8

the witnesses personally and determine firsthandimpression their demeanor on the stand.

xxx xxx xxx

To further substantiate her testimony, Melanieidentified photographs depicting the ruined trees andplants (Exhibits D-D-3) to prove the issue in dispute. Forpurposes of admissibility, it has been sufficiently shownthat these photographs were the accurate representationof the scene that they depict. Having established herpresence at the scene, she has attested to thesephotographs as to their accuracy and authenticity as shewas the one who took the pictures right after the

incident. Accordingly, the claim that these photographswere not properly authenticated should likewise berejected.

(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 destructioncommitted by petitioners within private complainants property. In

the case of Magdiwang Realty Corporation et al. v The ManilaBanking Corporation, the Supreme Court had occasion to reiteratethe well-entrenched jurisprudential rule, to wit;

The settled rule is that conclusions and findings offact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appealand should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogentreasons because the trial court is in a better position toexamine 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 presentedduring the trial by the MTC should therefore be given strong weight


9/12

9

and more so in this case where the findings of the MTC has alreadybeen affirmed by the RTC.

Such testimonies further find support in the photographs

depicting the aftermath of the destruction. The strength of suchobject evidence cannot be overemphasized as held in the case ofPelonia v People, thus;

Physical evidence is a mute but eloquentmanifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchyof trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such asmurder or rape where the accused stands to lose hisliberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions,relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining

the truth. Physical evidence is evidence of the highestorder. It speaks more eloquently than a hundredwitnesses.

(521 SCRA 207 [2007]).

The RTC did not err in rulingthat the petitioners are not

tenants of the subjectproperty-----------------------------------------

The petitioner, however, is of the argument that they are notliable for the crime committed since the plants destroyed werelocated in the portion of the land under their tenancy (AmendedPetition 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 foraccused defense, cannot be clearer. It mentions only thelandholdings of the properties covered by OCT No. P-


10/12

10

5160(M) and ICT No. 5159(M) to be the subject of thetenancy relationship but not the property of the privatecomplainant which is covered by separate OriginalCertificate 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 theproperty as bona fide tenants did not cover the propertyof the private complainant. Consequently, a presumptioncomes to the fore that the banana and orange trees andpineapple plants belong to the private complainant. Infact, no less than the accused Amelia Punzal herselfadmitted during trial that she is not a tenant of theprivate complainant Melanie Palad (TSN, p. 3, February22, 2012). The supposition therefore of the accused-

spouses that their act of clearing and plowing is inaccordance with their legal obligation to cultivate theland of the private complainant as bona fide tenantsshould be rejected and can only be taken as a meresubterfuge to have an excuse on the present criminalcharge.

(RTC Decision, 5 November 2012, page 3).

Indeed, the appellants argument rests on the foundation thatpetitioners are the established owners of the subject property. Suchfact was never established in this case. As determined by the RTCin this case, however, and by the DARAB in the administrativeproceedings, the petitioners are not the legal tenants of the subjectproperty. There is therefore no ground to support the petitionersargument that they were merely exercising their duties as tenantsin clearing the plants located in the subject property.

The RTC did not err in rulingthat the act of damaging theplants were done for the sakeof damaging them.-----------------------------------------


11/12

11

Lastly, the petitioners posit that the RTC erred in interpretingthe testimony of one of the petitioners of being hurt as indication ofanger so as to satisfy the third element of the crime that the act ofdamaging 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 theSupreme Court in the aforequoted case of Magdiwang RealtyCorporation et al. v The Manila Banking Corporation (supra,page 7), the trial court is in the best position to observe thedemeanor of the witnesses being the trier of facts. Having observedthe petitioner Amelia Punzal before the witness stand, the RTCsruling that the act was committed in anger should be givensubstantial weight by this honorable court.

The acts of petitioner Amelia Punzal can be used to convictpetitioner Martin Punzal since there is a finding that petitionersacted in conspiracy in committing the offense charged. The MTCruled as follows:

The conspiracy of the two accused, in the samevein, has been sufficiently established. The act of MarioPunzal in plowing the pineapple plants while Amelia

Punzal performed the cutting of banana trees aremanners in pursuance to a common purpose. Theiractions clearly import conspiracy as a mode of destroyingthe fruit plants belonging to the private complainant.

(MTC Decision, 20 June 2012, page 8).

The effects of conspiracy were discussed by the SupremeCourt as follows:

For indeed, it is well-entrenched in ourjurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of oneis the act of all, and all persons taking part in the crimeshall be held guilty as principals. It is of no moment thatnot all the accused took part in the actual commission ofevery act constituting the crime. Each is responsible for all


12/12

Punzal and Punzal v People (Comment-Draft)

Documents

Transcript of Punzal and Punzal v People (Comment-Draft)