Technically, it was the government itself that was responsible for the destruction of property:

Technically, it was the government itself that entered the code - but I think the government won't have any problem demonstrating that it was the phone owner who was responsible for it being wiped. The owner took an action (giving the "wipe" code rather than the "unlock" code or just staying silent) that they knew, or reasonably could have foreseen, would result in the wiping of the data from the phone - having intentionally created the condition that entering such code would result in the destruction of that data.

I'm sure they'll try to argue that the owner wasn't the one who "destroyed" the property, but I wouldn't give it a great chance of success if the prosecution gets to that point.

"Oh, that's strange, officer. I don't understand how that could have happened. You must have done something incorrectly."

I mean, they can say it - but it's a lie, and it will be pretty easy for the government to establish that it was a lie, given that even public news reports about the case have pointed out that the phone owner installed the software that gave the phone this functionality and deliberately chose to give the agents the "wipe" code instead of the "unlock" code.

Just because you can think of a lie doesn't mean you've got a great defense to a criminal charge. Those types of transparent lies aren't going to do much to help you.