Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff
,
Crim. Case No. 64227
For : Unjust Vexation
- versus -
DECISION
On February 25, 2011,2 the Office of the City Prosecutor Las Piñas
City filed an Information charging accused Maria Theresa Viriña (Viriña)
with the crime of Unjust Vexation as penalized in Article 287 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Contrary to law.”
1 Initially handled by the undersigned as Assisting Judge per Administrative Order No. 150 -2016 dated
August 31, 2016. This case was transferred to Branch 123 per Administrative Order 97-2017 dated June 1,
2017.
2 Handled by Hon. Judge Ralph S. Arellano when he was still Assisting Judge in Branch 79, METC Branch 79, Las
Piñas City.
3 Records, p. 1.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 2 of 8
4 Records, p. 40.
5 Records, pp. 58-59.
6 Records, pp. 8-12.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 3 of 8
On May 29, 2014, accused Viriña moved for leave of court to file
Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
the essential elements of Unjust Vexation.11 The same was opposed on the
ground that the accused has yet to file a comment to its formal offer of
evidence and the court has yet to rule on its admission.
On July 3, 2014, the court denied the motion for leave for being
premature.12
On August 29, 2014,13 the court resolved that the prosecution had
already established a prima facie case for the crime charged. Thus, the
need to continue with trial.
The Issue
The court is now tasked to resolve the issue of whether or not the
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
is guilty of committing the crime of unjust vexation.
The Ruling
16 Records, p. 287.
17 Records, pp. 289-294.
18 Records, p. 307.
19 Maderazo, Perido, and Maderazo, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 6 of 8
Supreme Court declared that the said offense is broad enough to include
any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or
material harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.
Compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in the Information, for the
crime of unjust vexation may exist without compulsion or restraint.20
In the case at bench, the prosecution simply claimed that the act
of accused Viriña in taking the original checks without permission had
caused annoyance, distress and irritation to the private complainant.
This was solely based on private complainant’s testimony where she
recounted her discovery that the checks were missing after accused
Viriña’s visit to her law office.
For her part, the accused maintained that the private complainant
willingly turned over the original checks to her as she asked for them
upon the instructions of her brother who was the client of private
complainant. She, likewise, insisted that had she really taken the checks
in a clandestine fashion, private complainant would have known the
same immediately. More importantly, she expressly assured private
complainants that the checks would be returned when needed for her
brother’s case.
20 Ibid.
21 G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006.
22 People v. Sumingwa, GR No. 183619, October 13, 2009.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 7 of 8
Expectedly, this was denied by the accused by saying that the private
complainant willingly gave her the checks. As the operative act
considered as the root of the annoyance caused, it is important to
establish the taking of the checks without permission. On this core, the
prosecution’s evidence was wanting.
It would have been different had Agtarap took the witness stand
and testified as to the lack of authority by the accused in ‘taking” the
checks as this would have confirmed bad faith on the part of the accused
and defined her act of taking the original checks as ill-motivated. Simply
put, this case involves two entirely opposing factual versions.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, the testimony of private complainant
fell short. The prosecution, likewise, chose to waive its right to cross-
examine the accused and show or exhibit any falsehood of her defense.
SO ORDERED.
Copy furnished: