Short answer. Yes. Article 331 of the Revised Penal Code treats damage to statues and public monuments as its own offence, punished by imprisonment rather than by a fine measured against the value of what was broken. Damaging a useful or ornamental painting of a public nature is punished separately and more lightly.
What the law says
Any person who shall destroy or damage statues or any other useful or ornamental public monument, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period.
Revised Penal Code, Article 331 — Damaging Monuments And Paintings. Read the full provision →
Why it is treated apart from ordinary malicious mischief
Ordinary damage to property is generally punished by reference to the value of the thing destroyed, which works badly for a monument. What is the market price of a war memorial or a century-old marker? The Code answers by pulling these objects out of the ordinary scheme and fixing the penalty by the character of the object instead. The harm the article recognises is not the replacement cost of the stone but the loss to the public of something that belonged to everyone. That is also why the offence stands whether the monument is grand or modest, and whether or not the local government had insured it.
Monuments and paintings are graded differently
The first paragraph covers statues and any other useful or ornamental public monument, and carries imprisonment from arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period. The second covers any useful or ornamental painting of a public nature and is markedly lighter — arresto menor or a fine not exceeding forty thousand pesos, or both, at the court's discretion. That forty-thousand figure is the amount set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the fines throughout the Revised Penal Code; older reproductions still print the original 1930 amount and are out of date.
What is not covered
The article speaks of things public in character. Spray-painting a private wall, a shopfront or a neighbour's gate is not this offence, though it is very likely malicious mischief and gives the owner a civil claim for the cost of restoration. A private sculpture in a private garden is likewise outside it. Note also the words destroy or damage. Removing a monument without harming it, or covering it temporarily, is a different question and may be a matter for the local authority rather than a criminal court. Where the object is a declared cultural property or a historical marker, separate heritage legislation applies and imposes its own, considerably heavier sanctions.
If a young person has been caught
Most complaints of this kind involve teenagers and spray paint, and families are usually more worried about the record than the penalty. Two things are worth knowing. Criminal liability of children is governed by the juvenile justice law, which provides for diversion rather than prosecution in appropriate cases, and the age of the person involved changes the process substantially. Separately, restoring the monument and paying for the cleaning is a civil obligation that often shapes how the complaint proceeds. No outcome can be promised. Preserve any photographs of the actual damage, do not let a minor give a statement without a parent and counsel present, and take advice early.