Unjust Vexation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

10 years 3 weeks ago #3044 by Ronel Cagro
Unjust Vexation from the word "unjust" means not just; lacking in justice or fairness, and the word "vexation" is defined as the act of harassing or causing trouble. So unjust vexation must mean harassing or causing trouble without justifiable reasons.

According to Atty. Sarmiento ( 10th Placer, 1997 Bar Exam.) that it will not burn too much brain cells to realize that Article 287, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code that punishes “unjust vexation” suffers from congenital defects and should be declared unconstitutional for the following reasons:

Article 287, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code condemns no specific or definite act or omission thus failing to define any crime or felony; Said penal provision is so indefinite, vague and overbroad as not to enable it to be known what act is forbidden; Such vagueness and overbreadth result to violation of the due process clause and the right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged; and Such vagueness and overbreadth likewise amount to an invalid delegation by Congress of its legislative power to the courts to determine what acts should be held criminal and punishable.


Professors of Criminal Law justify this apparent lack of definition saying that unjust vexation is a catch-all crime that applies whenever the act or omission complained of does not specifically fall under any other provision of the Revised Penal Code. But we do not even allow common-law crimes. In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions.


An examination of the annals of our jurisprudence would show that Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code has been used to punish a great variety of different acts:

In People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369, August 23, 1934, Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code was used to punish the defendants for unjust vexation for the act of disturbing or interrupting a ceremony of a religious character;

In Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 983, January 30, 1947, it was used to prosecute the accused of unjust vexation committed by stopping the jeep driven by the complainant in a threatening attitude and without any just cause therefor and telling him to stop driving for the City of Manila while the strike of city laborers was still going on;

In People v. Reyes, 98 Phil. 646, March 23, 1956, it was held that the act of seizing, taking and holding possession of passenger jeep belonging to complainant, without the knowledge and consent of the latter, for the purpose of answering for the debt of the said owner, constitutes unjust vexation;

In People v. Yanga, 100 Phil. 385, November 28, 1956, accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of compelling the complainant to do something against his will, by holding the latter around the neck and dragging him from the latter's residence to the police outpost;

In People v. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962, the accused was prosecuted for unjust vexation for the act of embracing and taking hold of the wrist of the complainant;

In People v. Carreon, G.R. No. L-17920, May 30, 1962, accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of threatening the complainant by holding and pushing his shoulder and uttering to the latter in a threatening tone the following words: “What inspection did you make to my sister in the mountain when you are not connected with the Bureau of Education?”;

In People v. Gilo, G.R. No. L-18202, April 30, 1964, the Court held that the absence of an allegation of "lewd design" in a complaint for acts of lasciviousness converts the act into unjust vexation;

In Andal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-29814, March 28, 1969, accused were found guilty of unjust vexation under an information charging them with the offense of offending religious feelings, by the performance of acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful;

In People v. Maravilla, G.R. No. L-47646, September 19, 1988, a accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of grabbing the left breast of the complainant against her will;

Kwan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113006, November 23, 2000, the act of abruptly cutting off the electric, water pipe and telephone lines of a business establishment causing interruption of its business operations during peak hours was held as unjust vexation.


Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code that punishes “unjust vexations” is unconstitutional on its face for its fatal failure to forbid a specific or definite act or conduct. It suffers from congenital vagueness and overbreadth which are anathema to constitutional due process and the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense charged. Therefore, Art. 287, par. 2 cannot be a basis of any criminal prosecution, much less conviction. An unspeakable injustice was therefore done to all those who were convicted under this unjustly vexatious law. (Atty. Sarmiento)


“Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.”

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 years 3 weeks ago #3047 by SPO5
is this similar to verbal harassment or stalking? is there a law on stalking?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 years 3 weeks ago #3051 by Ronel Cagro
No! this is not similar to unjust vexation, because crime of stalking is any person who
willfully, maliciously, and with the intent to place another person in reasonable
fear of death, physical injury, unlawful restraint or sexual assault, repeatedly
follows or harasses the said person after having been given reasonable warning
or request to desist by or on behalf of the person so followed or harassed.


D2 sa Pinas Bill pa lang!!

SENATE BILL No.- 133 "AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING STALKING, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"
Introduced By Senator Pangilinan


Pero sa ibang bansa meron!
Section #264 Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Harassment

  1. No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed, or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that cause that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
  2. The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of:
        1. repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
        2. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
        3. besetting or watching the dwelling house or place where the other person, or anyone known to them; resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
        4. engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
  3. Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of:
        1. an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
        2. an offense punishable on summary conviction.

“Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.”

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

1 year 4 months ago #10178 by Arvin Genetia
may tanong lang ako legal issue at legal advice:

may isang babae na mejo may problema sa asawa ng pinsan nya.
kaya palagi nyang tinatawag na pangit ang anak nito sa tuwing makikita nya.
one day narinig ito ng nanay nung bata at sinagot nya ang babae ng "ANG GANDA MO."..

tapos kinasuhan yung nanay ng UNJUST VEXATION..

hinge lang ng advice kung makatarungan ba?kung anu pwede kontra demanda?at kung panu idedeal ang sitwasyon?

salamat ng marami sa mga sasagot..

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.225 seconds

The Philippines' Online Criminology Enthusiasts Community

RKMFiles.net is an online Philippine Criminology portal designed purposely to promote a culture of innovative criminology study in the Philippines. It's advocacy includes self-learning motivation in Public Safety Administration, Crime Investigation and Detection, Forensic Science, Criminal Jurisprudence, Correctional Administration, Criminal Sociology and other related disciplines of Criminal Justice Education.