CHAPTER NINE

MALICIOUS MISCHIEF – the wilful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage
due to hate, revenge or other evil motive.

ART. 327. WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS MISCHIEF – Any person who shall deliberately
cause to the property of another any damage not falling to the terms of the next
preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.

 ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another.
2. That such act does not constitute arson, or other crimes involving destruction.
3. That the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging
it. (This presupposes that the offender acted due to hate, revenge, or other evil motive)
 That the act should be under the impulse of a specific desire to inflict injury to another.
 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF cannot be committed through NEGLIGENCE, since culpa and malice
are essentially incompatible.
 Even if the act of malicious mischief is not driven by hatred or by desire for revenge, but by the
mere pleasure of destroying, it is still considered as an act of malicious mischief.
 If there was no malice in causing the damage, the obligation to repair or pay for damage is
only a civil liability (ART 217, NCC).
 In malicious mischief, damage means not only loss but also diminution of what a man owns.
 NOTE: If after damaging the property, the offender removes or makes use of the fruits or
objects of the damage for the intent to gain, it is THEFT.
 Damaging of property must not result from another crime.
 A person charged with malicious mischief can be found guilty of damage to property through
reckless imprudence.
 Cases of malicious mischief are regards to the means employed and the nature of the
damaged properties:
 Special cases of malicious mischief (ART 328)
 Damage and obstruction to means of communication (ART 330)
 Destroying or damaging statues, public monuments, or paintings (ART 331)
 EXAMPLE OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF:
 Bumping the car of another due to anger and hate (Taguinod v. People)
 Killing the cow of another as an act of revenge (People v. Valiente, et. al.)

CASE DIGEST
(CABALLES v. DAR 168 SCRA 247)
FACTS: Spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes, acquired a 500 sq. m. of land by virtue of deed of
sale given by Andrea Alicaba Millenes in Lawaan, Talisay, Cebu. However, before the sale of
the property to the Caballes, Bienvenido Abajon, constructed his house on a 60 sq. m. portion
of the said land. Abajon and Millenes agreed that the former could plant on the said land
portion and that the income will be shared fifty-fifty. Abajon would also pay mothly rental to
Millenes. Now, when the land property was sold to the Caballes, they try to expel Abajon in
the area as they are now the new owner. The former would also like to put up a poultry near
Abajon’s house and persuade the latter to transfer his house. However, Abajon refused and
offered the Caballes to pay rentals to them. But, the latter refused and demanded Abajon to
vacate the land but he also refused. Thereafter, Yolanda Caballes reprimanded Abajon for
harvesting bananas and jackfruit, without the former’s knowledge, from the said portion of
land which Abajon rented to the former owner. These bananas and jackfruits are planted by
Abajon himself. Subsequently, Abajon, with malicious and ill intent, cut down PHP 50.00
worth of banana trees on the said portion of land. The Caballes filed a criminal case against
Abajon of malicious mischief. However, the trial court referred the case to the Regional Office
No. VII of DAR (then MAR) for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the two
parties. As a result, the office concluded that the said criminal case was not proper for hearing
and added that Abajon, the accused, is a bona-fide tenant of the land owned by the
complaining witness, where the bananas are planted.

ISSUE: Whether Abajon is still a tenant under the new owners, Arturo and Yolanda Caballes. Does
the act of the former constitute the crime of malicious mischief, where the office of DAR
dismissed?

DECISION: Under RA 3844, Abajon is not a tenant for it only occupied a small portion of the land
which cannot be classified as an economic family size farm. However, the crime of malicious
mischief against Abajon was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that Abajon cannot be held
criminally liable for malicious mischief for cutting the banana trees because he (Abajon),
planted them before the new owners claimed it. Thus, Abajopn owns the Bannana trees.
Therefore, the first element of the crime of malicious mischief is missing since Abajon cut his
own planted banana trees.

ART. 328. SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF

 THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF:
a. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions.
b. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance.
c. Spreading any infection of contagion among cattle.
d. Causing damage to the property of things used in common by the public (i.e. National
Museum, waterworks, roads, etc.)
 These cases are also called qualified malicious mischief.
 The first clause of mischief mentioned above is distinguished from sedition in such a way that
the element of public and tumultuous uprising is not present. However, the two offenses intent
is both to obstruct the performance of public functions.
  The use of poisonous substance may be used to kill animals of the offended party, while
corrosive substance is used to cause rust, or destroy a property through chemical reaction.

ART. 329. OTHER MISCHIEF

 Mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are punished according to the value of the damage caused.
 If the amount involved can’t be estimated, the penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding
PHP 40, 000.00 is fixed by law.
 Scattering human excrement in public building is other mischief where the value of damage
can’t be estimated.

ART. 330. DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

 This means that the act committed is by damaging any railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
 For the purpose of the provisions of this article, the electric wires, fraction cables, signal
system, and other things pertaining to railways, fraction cables, signal system, and other things
pertaining to railways, shall be deemed to constitute an integral part of a railway system.
 If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision, or other accidents, a higher
penalty (prision mayor) shall be imposed. This means that the act must have resulted from
damage to railway, telegraph or telephone lines and not have been purposely sought by the
offender.
 If the rails are removed from a railway track to cause destruction, the act constitutes crime
involving destruction under Art. 324. The objective of the offender in Art. 330 is merely to
cause damage.
 This article does not cover cutting of telephone wires or those transmissions of electric light or
power, it only covers telephone or telegraph wires pertaining to railway system.
 If a person is killed as a result of the damage to railway but without the intent to kill, the crime
committed is damage to means of communication with homicide. Otherwise, MURDER.

ART. 331. DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS, OR PAINTINGS

Any person who shall destroy or damage statues or any other useful ornamental public
monuments, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period.

Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful or ornamental paintings of a public nature
shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding PHP40,000.00, or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court (RA 10951, Sec. 89)