In the Philippine legal landscape, Unjust Vexation is often referred to as the "catch-all" offense. Defined under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. 10951), it punishes "any other coercion or unjust vexation" not otherwise falling under more specific crimes. Because the definition is broad—essentially encompassing any human conduct that unjustly annoys, irritates, or vexes an innocent person—the quality of the initiatory affidavits is paramount.
When a complaint for unjust vexation is built on a shaky foundation, the defense can move for dismissal based on the insufficiency of the affidavits.
1. Failure to Allege the Element of "Vexatious Intent"
Unjust vexation is a malum in se crime, meaning criminal intent (mens rea) is a mandatory element. The affidavit must describe acts that clearly manifest an intent to annoy or cause distress.
- The Gap: If the affidavit merely describes a misunderstanding, a polite disagreement, or an accidental encounter, it lacks the "unjust" element.
- Grounds for Dismissal: A motion to dismiss (or a counter-affidavit seeking dismissal at the preliminary investigation stage) can argue that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense. If the described act is socially acceptable or lacks malice, the case fails to meet the threshold of a criminal act.
2. Lack of Particularity (Vagueness)
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them begins with the complaint-affidavit.
- The Gap: Affidavits that use generalities—such as "the respondent kept bothering me" or "he made my life miserable"—without specifying the time, place, and specific gestures or words used, are insufficient.
- Legal Basis: Under the Rules on Summary Procedure (which usually governs unjust vexation cases), the court may dismiss the case outright if it is "patently without merit" or if the affidavits fail to establish a prima facie case.
3. Failure to Comply with the "Barangay Conciliation" Requirement
Since Unjust Vexation is a light penalty offense, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Lupong Tagapamayapa.
- The Requirement: Under the Local Government Code, a Certificate to File Action is generally required before a criminal complaint can be filed in court.
- The Gap: If the affidavit and supporting documents do not show that the parties underwent barangay conciliation (and they reside in the same city/municipality), the case is premature.
- Grounds for Dismissal: Dismissal based on non-referral to the Lupon, which is a procedural ground that can be raised at the earliest instance.
4. The "Absence of Personal Knowledge" Rule
Affidavits must be based on the affiant’s personal knowledge or authentic records.
- The Gap: If the complainant’s affidavit relies entirely on hearsay (e.g., "my neighbor told me that the respondent was shouting at my door"), it carries no evidentiary weight.
- Legal Basis: During the judicial determination of probable cause, if the judge finds that the supporting affidavits are mere hearsay or are not executed by witnesses who actually perceived the "vexation," the case can be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
5. Contradictory or Physically Impossible Allegations
While credibility is usually a matter for trial, "material contradictions" within the affidavit itself can be grounds for an early exit.
- The Gap: If the affidavit alleges the respondent vexed the complainant at a specific location, but other attachments (like a CCTV clip or a separate statement) prove the respondent was elsewhere, the affidavit is deemed "insufficient" to support a finding of probable cause.
- Result: A prosecutor may dismiss the complaint during the preliminary investigation/inquest phase, or a judge may refuse to issue a warrant/commitment order.
Summary Table: Key Defenses Against Affidavits
| Ground | Legal Logic |
|---|---|
| Absence of Malice | The act described is not "unjust" but a mere exercise of a right. |
| Hearsay Evidence | The affiant did not personally witness the alleged vexatious act. |
| Prescription | Unjust vexation (a light offense) prescribes in 60 days. If the affidavit shows the act happened months ago, it is dismissed. |
| Procedural Lapse | Failure to attach the Certificate to File Action from the Barangay. |
Conclusion
In Unjust Vexation cases, the affidavit is the heart of the prosecution's case. Because the crime is so subjective, the courts demand a level of detail that moves the act from "annoying behavior" to "criminal conduct." An affidavit that is silent on the specific intent, lacks personal knowledge, or is filed beyond the 60-day prescriptive period provides the defense with solid grounds for a motion to dismiss.