3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

** Also spelled as “Marsalado” in some parts of the records.

VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 595 596

Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

*
G.R. No. 152997. November 10, 2004. 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

** Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

SALVADOR MARZALADO, JR., petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on
that score. Thus, the error invoked by the petitioner in the date of
Criminal Law; Trespass to Dwelling; Elements; Criminal the alleged trespass in the Information is of no grave import, for it
Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Discrepancy on the precise date is far from being the decisive issue in this case.
of the alleged trespass—the Information charges trespass allegedly
Same; Same; In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact
committed on a particular date while the accused’s defense relates
or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the trespass—
to an entry the following day—does not make the information
the gravamen of the crime is violation of possession or the fact of
defective.—Anent the Information, the contention of petitioner
having caused injury to the right of the possession.—Still
that the Information is defective is untenable. Admittedly, there
incumbent upon the prosecution is to establish the criminal intent
is a discrepancy on the precise date of the alleged trespass—the
and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal
Information charges petitioner Marzalado, Jr., with trespass to
cases rise and fall on the strength of the evidence of the
dwelling allegedly committed on November 2, 1993, while
prosecution and not the weakness of the evidence of the defense or
petitioner’s defense relate to an entry made the following day. The
the lack of it. In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or
discrepancy however, does not make the information defective.
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the trespass.
Facts and circumstances necessary for inclusion in the
The gravamen of the crime is violation of possession or the fact of
information are determined by reference to the definition and
having caused injury to the right of the possession.
elements of the specific crime. In trespass to dwelling, the
elements are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2) that he Same; Same; Where the accused, in entering the dwelling,
enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against acted for the justified purpose of avoiding further flooding and
the latter’s will. damage to his mother’s property caused by an open faucet, no
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A variance between the time criminal intent could be clearly imputed to him for the remedial
set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence action he had taken.—As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary
during trial does not constitute an error so serious as to warrant Romulo E. Ragaya, the unit rented by Albano was “forcibly
reversal of a conviction solely on that score.—The exact date when opened by the owner because of the strong water pressure coming
the alleged trespass occurred is not an essential element of the out of the faucet…” As Albano herself admitted, she and her
offense of trespass. It is sufficient that the Complaint or children already left the unit when the electricity supply was cut
Information states that the crime has been committed at any time off in the month of September. Hence, nobody was left to attend to
as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Rule 110, the unit, except during some nights when Albano’s maid slept in
Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that it is not necessary the unit. Clearly, Marzalado, Jr., acted for the justified purpose of
to state in the complaint or information the precise time the avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother’s property
offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient caused by the open faucet. No criminal intent could be clearly
of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed imputed to petitioner for the remedial action he had taken. There
at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was was an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid damage to the
committed as the information or complaint will permit. A leased unit. There is nothing culpable concerning Marzalado, Jr.’s
variance between the time set out in the indictment and that judgment call to enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of
established by the evidence during trial does not constitute closing the inlet valve as suggested by the OSG.
Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; In a situation of
ambiguity, where the act of the accused permits of two possible
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441

signification, one culpable and another innocent, the ambiguity and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
should be resolved in favor of the accused.—We find the evidence
598
on record insufficient to hold petitioner guilty of the offense
charged. Palpable
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
597
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

Qualified Trespass to Dwelling, and sentencing him to

VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 597 suffer the penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor and to pay a fine of P500 and to pay the
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People 4 5
costs. This petition likewise assails the Resolution dated
April 23, 2002, of the Court of Appeals, denying the
doubt exists in our mind as to the guilt of petitioner. In our view, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the The antecedent facts are as follows:
Regional Trial Court and of the Metropolitan Trial Court when it Cristina N. Albano was the lessee of a unit in the house
found petitioner guilty of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. In a owned by Luz Marzalado, the mother of herein petitioner,
situation of ambiguity, where the act of the accused permits of Salvador Marzalado, Jr. Sometime in February 1993, Luz
two possible signification, one culpable and another innocent, the Marzalado filed an ejectment case against Albano.
ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the accused. The Judgment was rendered against Albano, who was ordered
evidence in this case simply fails to convince us of his guilt beyond to vacate the leased premises and to pay the unpaid
reasonable doubt. rentals. Albano appealed to the RTC.
In September 1993, during the pendency of the appeal,
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and the electricity supply of the unit was cut off due to non-
resolution of the Court of Appeals. payment of bills. As a result, Albano transferred her
children to her father’s house, four houses away, leaving a
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
maid to sleep in the unit.
     Bienvenido D. Comia for petitioner.
Albano claims that on November 2, 1993, at around 1:00
     The Solicitor General for the People.
p.m., she went to her unit. She noticed that the lead pipe
QUISUMBING, J.: she used to hang clothes to dry was missing. When she
returned at about 8:00 a.m. the following day, November 3,
1
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision 1993, she discovered the padlock of the main door changed,
dated November 9, 2001 of the Court of Appeals, 2in CA- preventing
G.R. CR No. 22645, which affirmed the Decision dated
November 5, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of _______________
Quezon City, Branch 79, in Criminal Case No. Q-98-74695.
The RTC upheld the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who
Quezon City, Branch 35, convicting herein petitioner shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious
3
Salvador Marzalado, Jr., for violation of Article 280 of the harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor shall
Revised Penal Code on it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall
enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.
_______________
4 Rollo, p. 52.
1 Rollo, pp. 51-59. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, 5 Id., at p. 60. Penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, with
with Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis, and Perlita J. Tria Tirona Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis, and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador
concurring. concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 46-50.
599
3 ART. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling.—Any private person who
shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s will, shall be
punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 599
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People
penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441

her from entering the premises. She went to see petitioner November 2, 1993, sometime between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00
but he was not around. p.m. he was relaxing in front of his house, when he heard
On November 4, 1993, Albano again returned to her noises coming from Albano’s apartment. There he saw
unit. She peeked through the window jalousies and saw Marzalado, Jr., forcibly open the door of the unit, bring out
that the place was already empty. She immediately the belongings of Albano, and take these to his own house.
reported the matter to the barangay officials, who in turn, For his defense, Marzalado, Jr., testified that after the
advised her to go to the police. Thereafter, she filed a MeTC ruled against Albano in the MeTC ejectment case
complaint for grave coercion, qualified trespass to dwelling filed by his mother and because of the disconnection of the
and theft against petitioner. electricity, Albano already vacated the leased unit and
On November 14, 1993, Albano tried to see the accused, moved to her father’s place. According to petitioner, on
but again failed. This time she noticed that the roofing of November 3, 1993, he was on his way home when he saw
her unit had been removed and the main door locked from water in a continuous stream flowing out of Albano’s unit.
the inside. She was informed that on November 1, 1993, He then searched for Albano but to no avail. He reported
Marzalado, Jr., and his female companion took her lead the matter to the barangay officers and asked for two
pipe and on November 2, 1993, Marzalado, Jr., took her barangay tanods to accompany him to the vacated unit.
personal belongings and brought them inside his house. They went inside the unit where they found an open faucet,
Accordingly, Albano filed a suit for trespass to dwelling with water flooding the floor. He accused Albano of
with the MeTC of Quezon City against Marzalado, Jr., deliberately leaving the faucet open. He claimed Albano
thus: filed the criminal case of trespass to dwelling to harass him
and to retaliate against him and his family.
“The undersigned accuses SALVADOR MAR[Z]ALADO, JR., of On October 28, 1997, the MeTC handed down the
the crime of Trespass to Dwelling, committed as follows: following judgment:
That on or about the 2nd day of November, 1993, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the above-named accused without any “WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Salvador Mar[z]alado,
justifiable cause, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and Jr. “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trespass To
feloniously enter the dwelling place of CRISTINA N. ALBANO Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code and he is
located at No. 241 Road 1, Pag-Asa, this City, against the latter’s hereby sentenced the penalty of TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1)
will and without her consent or any members of the household, to DAY of Arresto Mayor and to pay a fine of P 500.00 and to pay the
the damage and prejudice of the said offended party. costs. 7
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
SO ORDERED.”
Quezon City, Philippines, March 16, 1994.”
_______________
On May 12, 1994, the accused was arraigned and pleaded
not guilty to the charge. A summary hearing followed, with 7 Rollo, p. 45.
Albano and her witness, Narciso Raniedo, testifying for the
prosecution. 601

_______________ VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 601

6 Id., at p. 61. Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

600
The trial court observed that the defense would have been
“a good defense” had the alleged entry been made on
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED November 2, 1993, the date stated in the Information,
instead of November 3, 1993, the date the accused said he
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People
entered the premises because Albano deliberately left the
faucet open.
Raniedo, the owner of the house fronting Albano’s unit, Marzalado, Jr., appealed to the RTC, which ruled the
testified that at around 5:00 p.m., on November 1, 1993, he matter in this wise:
was about to enter his house, when he glanced at the unit
leased by Albano. He saw Marzalado, Jr., take a lead pipe “WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed
and hand it to a woman waiting at the terrace of decision dated October 28, 1997, the same is hereby affirmed in
Marzalado, Jr.’s house. Raniedo further said that on toto.
8
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441
8
SO ORDERED.” The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals
committed a reversible error in sustaining the lower court,
Undaunted, Marzalado, Jr., elevated the matter to the since in the proceedings below, there was a grave
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 22645. The Court of misapprehension of facts by both the MeTC and RTC in
Appeals found no error in the challenged RTC decision and finding that he committed trespass to dwelling despite the
held: glaring proof that his entry was justifiable under 11
paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code —to
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the lower court’s decision is
prevent an imminent danger to property. He stresses that
hereby AFFIRMED in toto and the instant petition is
while he did enter the unit, he did so with the aid of
DISMISSED. 9
barangay officers and for the sole purpose of turning off the
SO ORDERED.”
faucet that was causing the flooding of the unit. He adds
Hence, petitioner comes to this Court assigning as errors of
the court a quo the following: _______________

I 10 Id., at p. 18.
11 Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The following do not incur any
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
criminal liability:
AFFIRMING THE DECISIONS OF THE METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BOTH ...
OF QUEZON CITY BECAUSE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED ON 4. Any person who, in order to avoid any evil or injury, does an act which causes
NOVEMBER 3, 1993, AND NOT NOVEMBER 2, 1993, AND THE damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
PETITIONER’S ENTRY IN THE PREMISES IS FULLY First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
JUSTIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS ASSISTED BY THEIR Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
BARANGAY SECRETARY AND TWO BARANGAY TANOD[S] Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
AND THE ENTRY IS FOR A VALID PURPOSE. HENCE, ...
THERE IS NO TRESPASS TO DWELLING.
603

_______________
VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 603
8 Id., at p. 50.
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People
9 Id., at p. 58.

602 that the Information filed against him should be considered

fatally defective for having stated that his entry was on
November 2, 1993, when in fact it was on November 3,
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
1993.
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that
petitioner’s entry cannot be justified since the flooding of
II the floor was not a danger to life nor property. Rather, the
OSG claims that the flooding of the unit could have been
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN averted had the petitioner resorted to merely turning off
SUSTAINING THE INFORMATION THAT THE ALLEGED the inlet valve of the water source. The OSG also stresses
TRESPASS TO DWELLING HAPPENED ON NOVEMBER 2, petitioner’s failure to refute the charge that he entered the
1993. THUS, WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE complainant’s unit on November 2, 1993. Moreover, the
COURT OF APPEALS, THERE WAS A MISAPPREHENSION OSG asserts that the exact time of the commission of the
OF FACTS, AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE ADOPTED THE crime in the Information need not be so accurate to
FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE METROPOLITAN
10
TRIAL preclude other dates near the actual date. It is sufficient
COURT AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. that the Information states a time as near to the actual
date, more so, where the time is not an essential element of
The foregoing may be reduced to one issue: Did the Court of
the offense, as in this case.
Appeals err in sustaining the conviction of Marzalado, Jr.,
Anent the Information, the contention of petitioner that
for qualified trespass to dwelling?
the Information is defective is untenable. Admittedly, there

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12

3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441

is a discrepancy on the precise date of the alleged trespass _______________

—the Information charges petitioner Marzalado, Jr., with
13 People v. Mauro, G.R. Nos. 140786-88, 14 March 2003, 399 SCRA 126
trespass to dwelling allegedly committed on November 2,
citing People v. Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, 15 August 2001, 363
1993, while petitioner’s defense relate to an entry made the
following day. The discrepancy however, does not make the SCRA 192. See also Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure, SEC. 11. Date

information defective. Facts and circumstances necessary of commission of the offense.—It is not necessary to state in the complaint
for inclusion in the information are determined by or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it
reference to the definition and elements of the specific is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have
12
crime. In trespass to dwelling, the elements are: (1) the been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its
offender is a private person; (2) that he enters the dwelling commission.
of another; and (3) such entrance is against the latter’s will. 14 People v. Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, 5 April 2000, 329 SCRA 737,
The exact date when the alleged trespass occurred is not 748.
an essential element of the offense of trespass. It is 15 People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, 26 March 1997, 270 SCRA 432,
sufficient that the Complaint or Information states that the 444.
crime has been committed at any time as near as possible 16 Munsey v. Hanly, 67 A 217 (1907).
to the date of 17 Austin v. Hallstrom, 86 A.2d 549 (1952).

605
_______________

12 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 148468, 148769 & 149116, 28 VOL. 441, NOVEMBER 10, 2004 605
January 2003, 396 SCRA 443, 460.
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People
604
To prove trespass, the prosecution presented as witness
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Narciso Raniedo who testified that he saw petitioner enter
the unit at around 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on November 2
Marzalado, Jr. vs. People and take out Albano’s belongings. No other eyewitness
13
corroborated Raniedo’s testimony. However, by her own
its actual commission. Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of account, Albano declared that18she discovered the trespass
Court provides that it is not necessary to state in the in the evening of November 3, the same day the barangay
complaint or information the precise time the offense was certified Marzalado, Jr.’s entry. This obviously does not
committed except when time is a material ingredient of the discount the fact that although the exact date of entry
offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed varied as between petitioner and respondent, they both
at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense were referring to the same entry.
was committed as the information or complaint will permit. What remains now is the issue of whether the entry of
A variance between the time set out in the indictment and petitioner Marzalado, Jr., was legally justified. We rule
that established by the evidence during trial does not that it is, based on the circumstances of this case.
constitute an error so serious 14as to warrant reversal of a As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary Romulo E.
conviction solely on that score. Thus, the error invoked by Ragaya, the unit rented by Albano was “forcibly opened by
the petitioner in the date of the alleged trespass in the the owner because 19
of the strong water pressure coming out
Information is of no grave import, for it is far from being of the faucet . . .” As Albano herself admitted, she and her
the decisive issue in this case. children already left the unit when the electricity supply
However, still incumbent upon the prosecution is to was cut off in the month of September. Hence, nobody was
establish the criminal intent and the guilt of the accused left to attend to the unit, except during some nights when
beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal cases rise and fall on Albano’s maid slept in the unit. Clearly, Marzalado, Jr.,
the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not the 15
acted for the justified purpose of avoiding further flooding
weakness of the evidence of the defense or the lack of it. and damage to his mother’s property caused by the open
In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or faucet. No criminal intent could be clearly imputed to
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the petitioner for the remedial action he had taken. There was
trespass. 16The gravamen of the crime is violation of an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid damage to
possession or the 17
fact of having caused injury to the right the leased unit. There is nothing culpable concerning
of the possession. Marzalado, Jr.’s judgment call to enter the unit and turn
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441 3/17/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 441

off the faucet instead of closing the inlet valve as suggested Procedure. (Gonzalez-Decano vs. Siapno, 353 SCRA 269
by the OSG. [2001])
Thus, we find the evidence on record insufficient to hold
petitioner guilty of the offense charged. Palpable doubt ——o0o——
exists in our mind as to the guilt of petitioner. In our view,
607
the

_______________

18 Rollo, pp. 19, 37.

19 Id., at p. 27.

606
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marzalado, Jr. vs. People

Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court and of the Metropolitan Trial Court
when it found petitioner guilty of Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling. 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. The evidence in this case simply fails
to convince us of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated November 9, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 22645, and its Resolution dated April 23, 2002
denying the Motion for Reconsideration, are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SALVADOR MARZALADO,
JR., is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge against him for
lack of evidence to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.

Notes.—Although dwelling (morada) is considered as

inherent in crimes which can only be committed in the
abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and
robbery in an inhabited house, it has been held as
aggravating in robbery with homicide because the author
thereof could have accomplished the heinous deed of
snuffing out the victim’s life without having to violate his
domicile. (People vs. Pareja, 265 SCRA 429 [1996])
As the penalty for simple trespass to dwelling does not
exceed six (6) months imprisonment or a fine of P1,000.00,
the same is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001783f4ce5f5f0f302e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12