I. Legal Basis
Unjust vexation is penalized under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended), which provides:
“Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from Five thousand pesos (₱5,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00), or both.”
The current penalty range is the result of Republic Act No. 10951 (approved August 29, 2017), which adjusted the monetary values in the Revised Penal Code to reflect present economic realities. Prior to RA 10951, the fine was only ₱5.00 to ₱200.00.
II. Nature of the Crime
Unjust vexation is a crime against personal liberty and security (Title Nine, RPC) but is more accurately described as an offense against human dignity and peace of mind. It is the catch-all provision for acts that annoy, irritate, vex, humiliate, or disturb another person without constituting any other specific crime in the Code.
The Supreme Court has consistently described it as a formal crime—it is consummated by the mere performance of the act itself, regardless of the result. The gravamen is the intentional causation of annoyance or irritation without lawful justification.
III. Elements (as consistently held by the Supreme Court)
- That the offender performs an act or acts;
- That the act/s cause annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, embarrassment, or disturbance to the mind of the offended party;
- That the act/s are not covered by any other specific provision of the Revised Penal Code;
- That the act/s are committed intentionally and without lawful justification.
The second element is subjective—what vexes one person may not vex another—but the Court has ruled that the test is the reaction of the complainant, provided it is reasonable under the circumstances.
IV. Penalty
- Arresto menor (imprisonment from 1 day to 30 days) in its minimum period (1 to 10 days) is the most common penalty imposed in practice;
- Fine ranging from ₱5,000.00 to ₱200,000.00 (post-RA 10951);
- Both imprisonment and fine may be imposed in the discretion of the court.
In practice, courts almost always impose only a fine (usually ₱5,000–₱20,000) unless the act is particularly reprehensible or repeated.
V. Prescription Period
Unjust vexation is a light felony. Under Article 90 of the RPC (as amended), light offenses prescribe in two (2) months from discovery or from the commission of the act if committed with concealment.
This extremely short period is the most common ground for dismissal of unjust vexation cases.
VI. Distinguished from Related Offenses
| Offense | Distinguishing Feature |
|---|---|
| Grave Coercion (Art. 286) | Compulsion by violence or intimidation to do something against one’s will |
| Light Coercion (Art. 287, par. 1) | Seizure of property by violence to apply to debt |
| Other Light Threats (Art. 285) | Threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime |
| Alarms and Scandals (Art. 155) | Public disturbance (e.g., firing gun in public place, drunken brawls) |
| Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266) | Actual physical contact causing slight injury |
| Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336) | Lewd act with lascivious intent |
| Slander by Deed (Art. 359) | Public act performed to humiliate or discredit the honor of another |
Unjust vexation is the residual crime—it is charged only when the act does not fall under any of the above.
VII. Common Acts Constituting Unjust Vexation (Supreme Court Cases)
The following acts have been held to constitute unjust vexation:
- Kissing a woman against her will (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-13660, 1959)
- Embracing or hugging a person without consent (People v. Ignacio, G.R. No. 106776, 1994)
- Persistently calling or texting someone despite clear refusal (multiple MTC and RTC decisions; now often charged under RA 9262 or RA 10175 if aggravating)
- Scolding or shouting obscenities at another in public (People v. Maderazo, G.R. No. 131223, 2000)
- Flicking lighted cigarette toward a person (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 128230, 1999)
- Making prank calls or sending anonymous annoying letters
- Blocking a person’s path without justification
- Taking photographs of a person inside their home without consent (if not violation of RA 9995 or RA 10175)
- Spreading false rumors that cause embarrassment but do not amount to libel or oral defamation
- Persistent and unjustified refusal to return personal belongings (if not theft or robbery)
VIII. Acts That Do NOT Constitute Unjust Vexation
- Exercise of a legal right, even if it causes annoyance (e.g., lawful collection of debt, filing of legitimate cases, peaceful picketing)
- Acts done in good faith or under honest mistake
- Mere rudeness or discourtesy without intent to vex
- Acts that fall under labor relations (usually under NLRC jurisdiction)
- Acts covered by special laws (e.g., RA 9262 psychological violence, RA 10175 cyberlibel, RA 11313 Safe Spaces Act)
IX. Procedure and Jurisdiction
- Barangay conciliation is mandatory under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (PD 1508, now Local Government Code). No criminal complaint for unjust vexation may be filed in court without a Certificate to File Action from the Barangay Captain.
- Filed before the Municipal Trial Court or Metropolitan Trial Court under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (because maximum penalty does not exceed 6 months).
- Public crime—requires fiscal’s finding of probable cause. Private complainant cannot directly file in court without prosecutor’s approval.
X. Practical Realities and Criticisms
Unjust vexation is one of the most commonly filed criminal complaints in the Philippines, especially in small communities and between neighbors, relatives, or former lovers. It is frequently used as a counter-charge in other cases (e.g., someone sued for slight physical injuries files unjust vexation in retaliation).
Critics point out that its vague and broad definition makes it susceptible to abuse and weaponization in personal disputes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned prosecutors and judges to be circumspect in giving due course to such complaints when they appear to be mere harassment suits.
XI. Conclusion
Unjust vexation remains a vital but often abused provision in Philippine criminal law. It protects the peace of mind and dignity of individuals from petty but intentional annoyances that do not rise to the level of graver offenses. However, its extremely short prescription period (2 months), low penalty, and mandatory barangay conciliation requirement make it a limited tool—one that is more effective as a deterrent or bargaining chip in settlement than as a vehicle for serious punishment.
In the words of Justice Reyes in an old but still-cited case: “The law punishes unjust vexation to preserve the tranquility and peace of mind of individuals against petty tyrants.”