JURISPRUDENCE ON UNJUST VEXATION

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, an 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.