SALVADOR MARZALADO vs.

People
G.R. No. 152997.  November 10, 2004

Facts: Cristina N. Albano was the lessee of a unit in the house owned by the mother of the petitioner.
His mother filed an ejectment case against Albano.  Judgment was rendered against Albano, who was
ordered to vacate the leased premises and to pay the unpaid rentals.  Albano appealed to the RTC.
During the pendency of the appeal, the electricity supply of the unit was cut off due to non-payment
of bills.  As a result, Albano transferred her children to her father’s house, four houses away, leaving a
maid to sleep in the unit. Albano claims that she noticed that the lead pipe she used to hang clothes to
dry was missing.  When she returned the following day she discovered the padlock of the main door
changed, preventing her from entering the premises.  She went to see petitioner but he was not
around. On the next day she again returned to her unit.  She peeked through the window jalousies
and saw that the place was already empty.  She immediately reported the matter to
the barangay officials, who in turn, advised her to go to the police.  Thereafter, she filed a complaint
for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling and theft against petitioner. 10 days after, Albano
tried to see the accused, but again failed.  This time she noticed that the roofing of her unit had been
removed and the main door locked from the inside.  She was informed that the petitioner and his
female companion took her lead pipe and also took her personal belongings which brought inside his
house.
Albano filed a suit for trespass to dwelling with the MeTC against Marzalado, Jr.. witness
named Raniedo, the owner of the house fronting Albano’s unit, testified that he saw the petitioner,
take a lead pipe and hand it to a woman waiting at the terrace of Marzalado, Jr.’s house.  He further
testified that the next when he was relaxing in front of his house, he heard noises coming from
Albano’s apartment.  There he saw Marzalado, Jr., forcibly open the door of the unit, bring out the
belongings of Albano, and take these to his own house.
On his defense, he accused Albano of deliberately leaving the faucet open causing it to flood on the
floor. The MeTC handed a judgment finding the accused  Salvador Mar[z]alado, Jr. “GUILTY” beyond
reasonable doubt of Qualified Trespass To Dwelling under  Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code.
Marzalado appealed the decision to the RTC. RTC affirmed the MeTC’s decision. The CA also affirmed
the decision. Defense said that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decisions of the MTC and
the RTC because the incident happened on Nov. 3 and not Nov. 2 and so there is a misapprehension
of facts and that his entry in the premises is fully justified because he was assisted by their brgy.
Secretary and 2 brgy. tanods.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of qualified trespass to dwelling

Ruling: The decision of the CA is reversed and that the accused is hereby acquitted.
The Court states that the exact date when the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential
element of the offense of trespass.  It is sufficient that the Complaint or Information states that the
crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.
However, the Supreme Court further stated that as certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary the unit
rented by Albano was “forcibly opened by the owner because of the strong water pressure coming out
of the faucet… even Albano herself admitted, she and her children already left the unit when the
electricity supply was cut off.  Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, except during some nights
when Albano’s maid slept in the unit.  Clearly, Marzalado, Jr., acted for the justified purpose of
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother’s property caused by the open faucet.  No criminal
intent could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial action he had taken.  There was an
exigency that had to be addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit.   There is nothing culpable
concerning Marzalado, Jr.’s judgment call to enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing
the inlet valve as suggested by the OSG. The Court also stated that in a situation of ambiguity, where
the act of the accused permits of two possible signification, one culpable and another innocent, the
ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the accused.