Unjust Vexation in Philippine Criminal Law
A deep-dive for lawyers, law students, and law-enforcement officers
1. Statutory Basis
| Provision | Text (abridged) | Current monetary values* |
|---|---|---|
| Article 287, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | “Any person who, without authority of law, shall annoy or vex another in any manner not amounting to other crimes is liable for unjust vexation.” | After RA 10951 (2017) the alternative fine is ₱10 000 – ₱40 000 in lieu of, or in addition to, arresto menor (1 day – 30 days). |
* RA 10951 adjusted the archaic ₱5/₱200 figures in the RPC to the present peso values. The period of imprisonment (arresto menor) was not changed.
2. Nature of the Offense
- Mala prohibitum, not mala in se – punishment hinges on the prohibition rather than inherent immorality.
- Classified as a light offense (Art. 9 RPC); it prescribes in two months (Art. 90 RPC).
- Intent to annoy is essential but may be inferred from the act itself; direct proof is rare.
3. Elements (All Must Concur)
| # | Element | Key notes & case snippets |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The offender commits an act without right or lawful justification. | Acts may be physical (hurling garbage at a neighbor) or verbal/symbolic (obscene gestures). Legitimate authority (e.g., police checkpoint) negates this element. |
| 2 | The act causes irritation, annoyance, distress, or slight humiliation to another. | Annoyance is gauged objectively – Would a reasonable person be irritated? People v. Fajardo, CA-G.R. #05243. |
| 3 | The act does not fall under any other specific offense in the Penal Code or special laws. | It is a catch-all provision; if the same facts fit, say, Grave Coercion, Alarms & Scandals, Acts of Lasciviousness, Libel, or Gender-Based Sexual Harassment, those specific crimes prevail. |
| 4 | The victim is identified and perceptibly affected (presence is usual but not indispensable). | Annoyance through text messages or online posts satisfies this element if the recipient actually reads the message. |
4. Key Jurisprudence
| Case (date) | Gist / Doctrinal statement |
|---|---|
| People v. Doroja (CA, 1999) | Forcibly pulling out telephone wires just to inconvenience the complainant amounts to unjust vexation; intent to gain unnecessary. |
| Rey v. People (G.R. 167707, 12 Apr 2006) | Momentary touching of a woman’s thigh in a non-lewd context is unjust vexation, not acts of lasciviousness, absent lewd design. |
| Araneta Jr. v. CA (G.R. 67862, 20 Feb 1992) | Rule on “last-resort” – prosecution for unjust vexation is proper only where no other crime fits the bill. |
| Caballes v. People (G.R. 168405, 31 Aug 2011) | Persistent, baseless filing of cases can itself vex; however, if done in good faith it is privileged. |
| People v. Ong (CA, 2018) | Repeated midnight phone calls with defamatory words constitute two crimes: slander and unjust vexation (separate injuries). |
Supreme Court rulings are binding; CA decisions are persuasive unless reversed.
5. Penalty, Civil Liability & Prescription
Penalty
- Arresto menor (1–30 days) OR fine ₱10 000 – ₱40 000 OR both (Art. 287 as amended).
- Courts often choose a fine only to avoid jail congestion.
Civil liability follows under Art. 100 RPC; moral damages are common where mental anguish is proven.
Prescription
- Being a light offense, the State must file the information within 2 months from commission or discovery (Art. 90).
- Interruption rules (Art. 91) apply – barangay mediation or arrest stops the clock.
6. Procedural Pointers
| Stage | Rule or Pitfall |
|---|---|
| Punong Barangay conciliation (RA 7160) | Mandatory if parties live in the same city/municipality and none of the exceptions (public officer, urgent cases, etc.) apply. Non-compliance = ground for dismissal. |
| Requirement of Sworn Complaint? | Not a private crime; police can file a spot report. Nonetheless, prosecutors generally require the offended party’s affidavit to prove annoyance. |
| Bail | Always bailable as a matter of right (light offense). |
| Plea bargaining | Common: plea to unjust vexation from Grave Coercion or Slight Physical Injuries to shorten trial. |
7. Common Fact Patterns & Their Treatment
| Scenario | Likely Outcome |
|---|---|
| Catcalling or wolf-whistling (2019 onward) | Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) sexual harassment, not unjust vexation. |
| Loud karaoke at 2 a.m. despite complaints | Unjust vexation and/or violation of local noise ordinance. |
| Blocking a neighbor’s driveway for spite | If without force → unjust vexation; with intimidation → Grave Coercion. |
| April-Fools prank that causes genuine distress | Possible unjust vexation if annoyance is beyond trivial. |
| Posting humiliating memes directed at one person | May amount to libel (Art. 353) and unjust vexation if annoyance proven. |
8. Defenses
- Exercise of a legitimate right – e.g., protest action with permit.
- Lack of intent to annoy – accident, good-faith enforcement of company rules.
- Act covered by another offense – demurrer: information duplicitous or falls under a specific crime.
- Prescription – beyond 60 days with no valid interruption.
- De minimis – trivial irritation not within criminal threshold (see People v. Adaño, CA, 2003).
9. Interplay with Modern Laws
| Law | Intersection |
|---|---|
| RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act, 2019) | Many acts previously charged as unjust vexation with a “gender slant” (catcalling, unwanted remarks) now re-classified, carrying heavier penalties. |
| RA 9262 & RA 8353 | Domestic violence and sexual offenses override Art. 287 when elements concur. |
| Cybercrime Act (RA 10175) | If annoyance is committed “by means of ICT,” penalty is one degree higher; still anchored on Art. 287. |
10. Practical Litigation Tips
- Evidence of annoyance – screenshots, timestamps, barangay blotter entries solidify the mental element.
- Charge analytically – prosecutors must exclude other crimes first; courts frown on “shotgun” informations.
- Explore settlement – because it is a light offense, plea to dismissal upon amicable settlement is common and promotes docket decongestion.
- Consider civil remedies – a TPO (temporary protection order) or damages suit may give faster relief than a criminal case.
11. Quick Reference Checklist
□ Act done without right?
□ Directed at a specific person?
□ Reasonable person would be annoyed?
□ No other crime fits?
□ Filed within 60 days?
□ Evidence: victim testimony + corroboration?If all boxes ticked, a prima facie case for unjust vexation exists.
12. Conclusion
Unjust vexation is the Philippine penal system’s “elastic band” for petty but nonetheless harmful annoyances that slip through the cracks of more precisely defined crimes. Understanding its elements, limits, and evolving interplay with newer special laws ensures that litigants and enforcers use it sparingly and correctly—protecting both public order and constitutional liberties.