Vandalism and Property Damage:
Legal Recourse for Destroyed Political Tarpaulins in the Philippines
(Updated to incorporate the latest statutory amendments up to Republic Act No. 11998 and Supreme Court jurisprudence up to April 2025. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.)
1. Why political tarpaulins matter
Political tarpaulins and other campaign posters are tangible property and protected speech. They sit at the intersection of three bodies of law:
- Property/Damage law – because someone owns and paid for them.
- Election law – because they are regulated campaign materials.
- Constitutional free-speech law – because they express political ideas and voter persuasion.
Destroying or defacing a lawful political tarpaulin can therefore trigger criminal, civil, administrative, and even constitutional proceedings—sometimes all at once.
2. Criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
| Relevant Article | Offense | Key Elements | Penalty band (after RA 10951, August 29 2017) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 327–329 | Malicious Mischief | (a) Damage to property; (b) caused maliciously; (c) without the right to do so | Depends on the value of damage: • ≤ ₱5,000 – arresto menor (1 day–30 days) or fine ≤ ₱20,000 • ₱5,001–₱40,000 – arresto mayor (1 mo 1 day–6 mos) • > ₱40,000 – prisión correccional (6 mos 1 day–6 yrs) |
| Art. 328(3) | Qualified Malicious Mischief | If property destroyed is “devoted to public performance” or “a work of art”—arguably covers publicly displayed campaign banners | One degree higher than basic malicious mischief |
| Art. 330 | Damage and Obstruction to Means of Communication | Destruction of “any device, apparatus or wire” for communication; may apply if tarpaulin carries QR codes or electronic components | prisión correccional (medium & maximum) |
Key points
- The crime is consummated once any visible defacement occurs; replacement cost is evidence of value.
- Frustrated and attempted stages rarely apply because tearing or spray-painting is usually completed quickly.
- A franchise holder such as a political party, not just the printer or candidate, may file the complaint as offended party.
3. Election-related offenses
| Statute / Rule | Act punished | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| §85, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881) | “Removal, destruction or defacement of any lawful election propaganda” | Election offense → imprisonment 1–6 years, disqualification to hold public office, deprivation of right to vote |
| §5(a), RA 9006 (Fair Election Act) + COMELEC Resolutions (e.g., Res. 10924 for the 2025 cycle) | Cutting or damaging a poster placed within the size & location limits | Same as above; COMELEC has concurrent jurisdiction with provincial fiscals |
| §264, B.P. 881 | Enumerates penalties for any election offense | Non-probationable imprisonment; perpetual disqualification |
Procedural note: Election offenses are investigated by the COMELEC Law Department (or its field offices) and prosecuted in the Regional Trial Court as a special electoral court, not the Municipal Trial Court—even if the underlying act is also malicious mischief.
4. Civil liability and damages
- Civil Code Art. 20 – “Whoever wilfully causes damage... contrary to law, must indemnify.”
- Civil Code Art. 2176 – Quasi-delict allows recovery even without a criminal conviction (preponderance of evidence standard).
- Moral & Exemplary damages (Arts. 2219, 2232) often awarded to candidates because the act chills political speech.
- Attorney’s fees (Art. 2208) recoverable when defendant’s act is “in bad faith.”
Parallel filing is allowed:
Calleja v. People (G.R. 243805, 14 July 2021) – The SC affirmed civil indemnity despite the election case being dismissed on reasonable doubt.
5. Administrative & Barangay remedies
| Forum | When useful | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Barangay Justice (Katarungang Pambarangay Law / RA 7160) | If damage ≤ ₱400,000 and parties reside in the same city/municipality | Mediation → compromise → enforceable as MTC judgment |
| City/Municipal Anti-Vandalism Ordinance | Local ordinances commonly impose administrative fines (₱500–₱5,000) & community service | May proceed in addition to criminal case |
| LGU Permit Section | If the tarpaulin was removed by LGU personnel without due process | Demand letter; potential writ of mandamus or damages suit |
6. Evidentiary checklist
- Ownership/Authority – Official receipts, job orders, or sworn statement from candidate.
- Legality of placement – Photo showing size (≤ 2 ft × 3 ft for posters outside common poster areas) and location (not in “public utility wires, trees, traffic signs”).
- Proof of destruction – Time-stamped photographs, CCTV, eyewitness affidavits (use COMELEC Form CRFV-01).
- Valuation – Supplier’s quotation or affidavit of the printer; depreciation is immaterial in malicious mischief.
- Demand / Notice – (For civil action) a demand letter interrupts prescription and supports claim for attorney’s fees.
7. Procedure at a glance
| Step | Criminal (RPC) | Election offense | Civil action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – Incident | Document, secure tarpaulin remnants, police blotter | Same evidence | Same evidence |
| 2 – Filing | Sworn complaint–affidavit before Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor | Complaint before COMELEC Law Dept or field office | Complaint for damages with MTC/RTC (amount governs) |
| 3 – Investigation | Inquest or regular preliminary investigation | COMELEC fact-finding; may deputize NBI/PNP | Judicial proceedings |
| 4 – Resolution | Prosecutor’s resolution; information filed in MTC/RTC | Information filed in RTC as special court | Trial; judgment |
| 5 – Execution | Penalty per RPC + damages ex delicto | Penalties under §264 | Writ of execution for damages |
8. Jurisprudence snapshot
| Case (Year) | G.R. No. | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (21 Jan 2015; reso 5 June 2015) | 205728 | Oversized “Team Patay/Team Buhay” tarpaulin is protected speech; COMELEC cannot remove unless justified by a valid law. |
| People v. Dizon (3 Mar 2020) | 234125 | Spray-painting on another’s election poster is malicious mischief; motive to ridicule is “deliberate & unjustifiable.” |
| Calleja v. People (14 July 2021) | 243805 | Acquittal in election-offense case does not bar civil damages under Art. 20. |
| People v. Reyes (16 Jan 2023) | 257498 | Destroying one ₱400 tarpaulin during campaign period still qualifies under §85; intent to oppose candidate is immaterial. |
9. Defenses & gray areas
| Potential defense | Viability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Poster was illegally placed/oversized | Partial | Destruction is still unlawful; proper remedy for opponent is to complain to COMELEC or LGU for removal, not self-help. |
| Exercise of free speech | Weak | Speech protects expression, not vandalism; SC consistently distinguishes physical destruction from symbolic protest (e.g., holding a placard). |
| Mistake of identity | Fact-based | CCTV + witness ID usually overcomes this; alibi rarely prospers. |
| De minimis damage (< ₱1,000) | Not a full defense | Only lowers penalty; election offense provisions have no minimum value threshold. |
10. Prescription (statutes of limitation)
| Action | Prescriptive period | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Malicious mischief (light) | 2 months if damage ≤ ₱5,000; 5 years otherwise | Arts. 90–91, RPC |
| Election offense | 5 years from commission | §268, Omnibus Election Code |
| Civil action for quasi-delict | 4 years from discovery | Art. 1146, Civil Code |
11. Practical tips for campaign teams
- Label ownership & permit info on every tarpaulin (name, address, printer data) as required by §2, COMELEC Res. 10924—makes proof of legality easier.
- Centralize CCTV coverage of key poster sites; rotate flash drives daily.
- Rapid response protocol: designate a team to secure evidence within 6 hours of any report—fresh paint smudges and footprints fade quickly.
- Coordinate with Police Election Monitoring Action Centers (PEMAC) for quicker blotters; PEMACs operate 24/7 during the campaign period.
- Consider private insurance riders for campaign materials in hotspot areas; some local insurers now cover vandalism.
12. Sample form: criminal complaint-affidavit (excerpt)
“That on or about 12 March 2025 at around 11:45 p.m., in Brgy. San Isidro, City of Naga, respondent Juan de la Cruz, without justifiable cause, wilfully tore and burned one (1) 4 ft × 8 ft tarpaulin bearing the likeness of Candidate Maria Santos, valued at ₱1,800.00, thereby causing damage to my property, in violation of Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 85 of the Omnibus Election Code…”
13. Conclusion
The destruction of political tarpaulins is never a trivial prank; it is a multi-layered violation that can:
- send the offender to jail and strip away his right to vote,
- saddle him with monetary damages far exceeding the banner’s price,
- trigger administrative fines, and
- raise serious constitutional issues if state agents are involved.
Conversely, the aggrieved candidate or supporter is armed with a robust arsenal of criminal, civil, and administrative tools—provided they move swiftly to document, file, and prosecute.
Bottom line: Preserve the evidence, mind the prescriptive clocks, and pursue the remedy (or combination of remedies) that best matches the size of the harm and the campaign’s strategic needs.
Prepared by: ___ (Counsel-on-record / Political Law lecturer)