PEOPLE VS REYES

By BEL

FACTS:
1. In a chapel located at Barrio Macalong, La Paz, Tarlac, a pabasa was being held
2. It was held on the evening of April 10l 1933, between 11 and 12 o’clock.
3. Procopio Reyes, Hermogenes Mallari, Marcelino Mallari, Castro Alipio, and Rufino
Matias arrived at the place.
4. They were carrying bolos and crowbars and started to construct barbed wire fence in
front of the chapel
5. Alfonso Castillo, chairman of the committee in charge of the pabasa, tried to stop
them from carrying out their plan and reminded them that it was holy week.
6. The people attending the pabasa noticed the verbal altercation, and they became
curious and excited of what’s happening that they left the place hurriedly to have a
look.
7. Dishes and saucers and benches that were used in the pabasa were toppled over.
8. The pabasa was discontinued and was not resumed until after an investigation
condceted by the chief of police on the following morning.
9. The accused persons are partisans of the Clemente Family.
10. Apparently, the land on which the old chapel was erected was informally donated by
the Clemente Family
11. When it was destroyed, the present chapel was erected, and there is now a dispute
as to whether the new chapel is impinging the land that belongs to the Clemente
Family.
12. Appellants were convicted of a violation of Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code:
Offending the religious feelings.

ISSUE: Are they guilty of the crime charged?

RULING:
No, instead, they are guilty of violating article 287 of the RPC: “unjust vexation”.
• It is to be noted that article 133 of the Revises Penal Code punishes acts "notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful."
• The construction of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious under the
circumstances to those present, is not such an act as can be designated as
"notoriously offensive to the faithful"
• The act would be a matter of complete indifference to those not present, no matter
how religious a turn of mind they might be.
• The fence was constructed late at night and in such a way as to vex and annoy the
parties who had gathered to celebrate the pabasa.
• Therefore, the court ruled that the appellants are therefore acquitted of a
violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal Code but found guilty of a
violation of article 287 of the Revised Penal Code