UNJUST VEXATION: A TICKET TO PRISON FOR YOUR ANNOYING NEIGHBOR

Have you ever had difficulty sleeping during the night because of your neighbor’s deafening karaoke session? Or do you perhaps experience waking up in the morning only to find your back yard full of garbage deliberately scattered there by one of your neighbors? Or maybe you are a woman who had been groped by a lewd old man while in a public place? Or were you in any way annoyed by the acts of anyone committed against you? If your answer is yes to any of these questions, fret not, because you have a legal remedy to actually avenge the wrong committed against you.

There is a law that can be found within the pages of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) that gives you a cause of action against someone who vexed or annoyed you to your very core, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the law on unjust vexation.

Unjust vexation is actually considered a form of light coercion. Under Article 287 of the RPC, it is provided that:

“any other coercion of unjust vexation shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from PHP5 (US$.10) to PHP200(US$4), or both.”

Seizing the belongings of a debtor to pay for his or her debt is also punishable under Article 287: “Any person, who by means of violence shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than PHP75 (US$1.50).”

The Supreme Court had the opportunity to explain the crime of unjust vexation in the case of Melchor G. Maderazo, et al. vs People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006) through Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., to wit:

“The second paragraph of Article 287 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. xxx

“In unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo, malice is an inherent element of the crime. Good faith is a good defense to a charge for unjust vexation because good faith negates malice.

“The paramount question to be considered is whether the offender’s act caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. xxx” (Emphases supplied).

It must be noted, however, from this explanation that an unwarranted annoyance geared toward someone’s appearance or irritating demeanor does not constitute the crime of unjust vexation. Just because you consider someone ugly, it does not mean that his or her face is vexatious. As can be gleaned from the abovementioned jurisprudence, there must be an overt act committed against you by the perpetrator which caused you annoyance, torment, or distress.

Applying the jurisprudence and the provision in unjust vexation cases, the prosecution must adduce evidence that the acts of your perpetrator have caused annoyance, irritation, torment or disturbance to your mind. Further, the penalty for unjust vexation is arresto menor, which has the duration of one day to 30 days of imprisonment and a fine ranging from P1,000 to P40,000, or both imprisonment and fine, if the prosecution will be able to establish the guilt of your parents beyond reasonable doubt.

In 2009, an irked Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed a Senate bill emphasizing that the section on unjust vexation was so ambiguous that it must be struck down for being unconstitutional. She proposed this amendment to the Revised Penal Code, separate from “Light Coercions:”

“Article. 287-A. Unjust Vexation—Any person who commits a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 500 pesos to 5,000 pesos, or both.”

“Unlike the crimes of theft, murder, and rape that are specifically defined in the Revised Penal Code, the definition of the crime of unjust vexation is conspicuously absent,” Santiago said in her explanatory note.

“The state, having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well-defined limitations, has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what act or acts shall constitute a crime. Hence, the instant bill seeks to provide a legal definition for the crime of “unjust vexation” and provide the corresponding penalty for its commission,” she added.

Eleven years had passed and the Senate has yet to act on the said bill as it remains pending. Considering that numerous cases of unjust vexation are starting to rise, it is of my belief that the said law must be given a clear-cut definition, limitations, and proper implementation so as to avoid confusion. It is also necessary to make sure that the interpretation of the said law, being so vague at the moment, will not be left to the whims and caprices of the implementing authorities.

Recently, the said law made it to the list of craziest laws in the world, together with the chewing gum law of Singapore. Albeit the fact that is deemed weird or crazy in an outsider’s perception, I still think that unjust vexation is real and legal attention must be given accordingly. After all, is it really that crazy to commit your neighbor to jail especially when that neighbor deliberately and continuously deprives you and your family a good night’s sleep? I think not.