Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

G.R. No.

L-40577 August 23, 1934

"ARELINO "ALLARI, ASTOR ALIPIO, #$% R&FINO "ATIAS, defendants-appellants.
Hilarion U. Jarencio for appellants.
Acting Solicitor-General Pea for appellee.
H&LL, J.:
Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code was used to punish the defendants for unjust vexation for the act of
disturbin or interruptin a cere!on" of a reliious character
#hile the pabasa was oin on the evenin of April $%, $&'', between $$ and $2 o(cloc), the defendants Procopio
Re"es, Policarpio *acana, +lorentino Cle!ente, ,er!oenes -allari, -arcelino -allari, Castor Alipio, and Rufino
-atias arrived at the place, carr"in bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the
chapel. Alfonso Castillo, who was chair!an of the co!!ittee in chare of the pabasa, tried to persuade the! to
refrain 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 the pabasa in the chapel and those who were eatin in the "ard thereof noticed what was
happenin, the" beca!e excited and left the place hurriedl" and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were
bro)en and benches toppled over. .he pabasa was discontinued and it was not resu!ed until after an investiation
conducted b" the chief of police on the followin !ornin, which investiation led to the filin of the co!plaint
appearin 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. #hen
it was destro"ed, the present chapel was erected, and there is now a dispute as to whether the new chapel is not now
i!pinin on the land that belons to the Cle!ente fa!il". .he appellants are partisans of he Cle!ente fa!il".
#hether the defendants are uilt" of unjust vexation
2t is ured upon us that the act of buildin a fence was innocent and was si!pl" to protect private propert" rihts. .he
fact that this aru!ent is a pretense onl" is clearl" shown b" the circu!stances under which the fence was
constructed, na!el", late at niht and in such a wa" as to vex and anno" the parties who had athered to celebrate
the pabasa and is further shown b" the fact that !an" of the appellants saw fit to introduce as their defense a false
Appellants are therefore ac3uitted of a violation of article $'' of the Revised Penal Code but found uilt" of a
violation of article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.