Good evening. My name is Patrick Arcellana and together with my co-counsels Attys.

Ang, Logronio and

Paguio, do hereby enter our appearances in favor of the Respondent-Appellees ROGE MUSHA
RAMIREZ and BILLY ALCID.

Your honors, it is inherent in human nature that the protection of ones rights be put at the forefront. One
such right is a persons property rights. Derived from Roman Law, the ius privatum or private law
provides for several rights of ownership of property and one of which is ius abutendi or the right to abuse.
Having full dominion of the property, an owner has the right to destroy or abuse the thing subject to
limitations provided by law. It is thus within the rightful bounds of an owner to abuse or destroy his
property. It is then improbable, and well-nigh impossible that such exercise be motivated by special
malice that is present in the crime of Malicious mischief.

Justices of this Honorable Court, ladies and gentlemen, may it please the court. Once again, I am Patrick
Arcellana and I stand before you to present the counterstatement of facts for the respondent-appellees,
ROGE RAMIREZ and BILLY ALCID.

1. For 43 years, dating back to 1973, the Musha family has been the owners and possessors of the
property in contention located in Magsaysay St. Hermosa, Bataan. Sometime in 1975, the family
erected a wooden gate, which faced the property of the church, to enable the family to go to the
church and access the water well.

2. ROGE RAMIREZ then inherited the property in the 1990s and replaced the gate with a wooden
one in 2001. In search of greener pastures, she left for Canada on July of 2007. ALCID was then
left to care for the property.

3. While RAMIREZ was gone, BIANCA MANGASER, the representative of the church, ordered
her employee GRACE HICBAN to erect a concrete fence that was adjacent to the steel gate such
that it blocked the passageway of the steel gate.

4. ALCID at that time was cultivating soil when he saw the on-going construction. He then
immediately went to MANGASER and told her that she had no right to erect such fence because
it was encroaching on RAMIREZs property and blocking their passage. Something that a normal
owner would do to vindicate property rights.

5. To emphasize their claim and proof of ownership, ALCID went so far as to go inside the house,
get their TCT, and went back outside to confront MANGASER. Now equipped with a proof of
ownership, ALCID asserted the boundaries of their property and clearly showed the document to
MANGASER.

6. However, in a fit of anger, MANGASER yelled AND I QUOTE Hoy boy, putangina ka. Huwag
ka makealam dito. Lupain namin ito. After such ALCID retreated back to the house.

7. ALCID reported this to RAMIREZ and thus the latter immediately prepared to go back home to
Bataan. She was then surprised to discover that the concrete fence had been completed.

8. Being a devout catholic herself, and to avoid further conflict with MANGASER and the church,
RAMIREZ resorted to the demolition of a part of her steel gate to regain access. It was just
enough for the ingress and egress of one person at a time.

9. ALCID then demolished RAMIREZ part of the steel fence on August 8, 2008. This act was seen
by the caretaker of the church and hurriedly reported it to MANGASER. Misunderstanding the
 situation, and assuming falsely, the caretaker told MANGASER that it was the churchs fence that
was being demolished. Upon hearing this, MANGASER then went to the barangay to file a
complaint on the same day August 1, 2008.

10. The caretaker went back and warned ALCID that his employer, MANGASER, already went to
the barangay to report this incident. ALCID then rapidly went to the barangay to explain that
what was being demolished was actually their own fence and not the churchs.

11. Subsequently, two hearings were conducted by the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Culis, Hermosa,
Bataan on August 7 and 19 of 2008. When these failed, MANGASER filed a case before the
MTC of Dinalupihan-Hermosa for Malicious Mischief only on October 16, 2008, more than 2
months or 76 days after the demolition incident.

12. It was on September 8, 2015 that the MTC rendered its decision finding guilt beyond reasonable
doubt for the accused and sentenced them to a straight penalty of 3 months arresto menor. An
appeal was then filed to the RTC of Dinalupihan, Bataan with the ground that the prosecution was
not able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the elements of malicious
mischief. The argument of prescription was also raised in such court.

13. On May 17, 2016, the RTC rendered its decision reversing and setting aside the MTC decision
dated Sept. 8, 2015 and acquitted the accused unconditionally. Private-petitioners moved to
reconsider the acquittal of the accused on June 6, 2016 but was denied by the RTC on July 25,
2016. The RTC found that the arguments presented were reshaped and that the arguments were
already resolved in the decision of the court dated May 17, 2016.

Your honors, the totality of these circumstances were acknowledged by the RTC when it acquitted the
accused-appellees because of failure of the plaintiffs to present proof beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of malicious mischief. It also acknowledged the fact that the action has already prescribed when it
was filed in court.

Given these factual and legal background of the case, as counsel of the Respondent-appellees, we humbly
submit the following arguments in the following order:

First, Mr. Angelo Logronio will argue that the petition should be dismissed outright for violating the
Constitutional right of the accused against double jeopardy.

Secondly, Ms. Czar Paguio, will argue that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the cause of action has already prescribed.

Thirdly, Mr. Terence Ang will argue that the MTC committed grave and reversible error in finding that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Lastly, I, as last counsel will conclude the case for the appellees. Thank you your honorable justices and
may it please the court.