8/11/2019 Unjust Vexation People vs. Reyes

1/1

G.R. No. L-40577 August 23, 1934THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.PROOPIO RE!ES, POLIARPIO NAANA, FLORENTINO LE"ENTE, HER"OGENES "ALLARI,

"ARELINO "ALLARI, ASTOR ALIPIO, #$% R&FINO "ATIAS,defendants-appellants.Hilarion U. Jarencio for appellants.

Acting Solicitor-General Pea for appellee.

H&LL, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code was used to punish the defendants for unjust vexation for the act ofdisturbin or interruptin a cere!on" of a reliious character

FATS'#hile thepabasawas oin on the evenin of April $%, $&'', between $$ and $2 o(cloc), the defendants ProcopioRe"es, Policarpio *acana, +lorentino Cle!ente, er!oenes allari, arcelino allari, Castor Alipio, and Rufinoatias arrived at the place, carr"in bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of thechapel. Alfonso Castillo, who was chair!an of the co!!ittee in chare of the pabasa, tried to persuade the! torefrain fro! carr"in out their plan, b" re!indin the! of the fact that it was ol" #ee) and that it was hihl"i!proper to construct a fence at that ti!e of the evenin. A verbal altercation ensued.#hen the people attendin thepabasain the chapel and those who were eatin in the "ard thereof noticed what washappenin, the" beca!e excited and left the place hurriedl" and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were

bro)en and benches toppled over. hepabasawas discontinued and it was not resu!ed until after an investiationconducted b" the chief of police on the followin !ornin, which investiation led to the filin of the co!plaintappearin on paes $ and 2 of the record.an" "ears ao the Cle!ente fa!il" b" infor!al donation ave the land on which the old chapel was erected. #henit was destro"ed, the present chapel was erected, and there is now a dispute as to whether the new chapel is not nowi!pinin on the land that belons to the Cle!ente fa!il". he appellants are partisans of he Cle!ente fa!il".

ISS&E'#hether the defendants are uilt" of unjust vexation

HELD'/01t is ured upon us that the act of buildin a fence was innocent and was si!pl" to protect private propert" rihts. hefact that this aru!ent is a pretense onl" is clearl" shown b" the circu!stances under which the fence wasconstructed, na!el", late at niht and in such a wa" as to vex and anno" the parties who had athered to celebrate

thepabasaand is further shown b" the fact that !an" of the appellants saw fit to introduce as their defense a falsealibi.

Appellants are therefore ac3uitted of a violation of article $'' of the Revised Penal Code but found uilt" of aviolation of article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.