Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    People Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Jolo Coronel
    The appellants were convicted of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code for performing acts offensive to religious feelings during a pabasa ceremony. However, the Supreme Court ruled that constructing a fence, while irritating under the circumstances, did not constitute a notoriously offensive act to the faithful in general. While their actions interrupted the ceremony, the more applicable charge was "unjust vexation" under Article 287. Considering the late timing and intent to annoy participants, the appellants were found guilty of unjust vexation rather than the original charge. They were therefore acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the second.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Jolo Coronel
    107 views1 page
    The appellants were convicted of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code for performing acts offensive to religious feelings during a pabasa ceremony. However, the Supreme Court ruled that constructing a fence, while irritating under the circumstances, did not constitute a notoriously offensive act to the faithful in general. While their actions interrupted the ceremony, the more applicable charge was "unjust vexation" under Article 287. Considering the late timing and intent to annoy participants, the appellants were found guilty of unjust vexation rather than the original charge. They were therefore acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the second.

    Original Description:

    Crim 2

    Original Title

    People vs Reyes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellants were convicted of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code for performing acts offensive to religious feelings during a pabasa ceremony. However, the Supreme Court ruled that constructing a fence, while irritating under the circumstances, did not constitute a notoriously offensive act to the faithful in general. While their actions interrupted the ceremony, the more applicable charge was "unjust vexation" under Article 287. Considering the late timing and intent to annoy participants, the appellants were found guilty of unjust vexation rather than the original charge. They were therefore acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the second.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views1 page

    People Vs Reyes

    Uploaded by

    Jolo Coronel
    The appellants were convicted of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code for performing acts offensive to religious feelings during a pabasa ceremony. However, the Supreme Court ruled that constructing a fence, while irritating under the circumstances, did not constitute a notoriously offensive act to the faithful in general. While their actions interrupted the ceremony, the more applicable charge was "unjust vexation" under Article 287. Considering the late timing and intent to annoy participants, the appellants were found guilty of unjust vexation rather than the original charge. They were therefore acquitted of the first charge but convicted of the second.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE VS REYES (1934)

    DOCTRINE: Unjust vexation

    FACTS: Appellants were convicted in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac of a violation of article 133 of the Revised Penal
    Code, which reads:

    ART. 133. Offending the religious feelings.—The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
    to prision correccional  in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to
    religious ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

    In the barrio of Macalong, municipality of La Paz, Province of Tarlac, there is a chapel where it is customary to hold what
    is known in local parlance as a  pabasa. As stated by the lower court, "the term  pabasa  is applied to the act of the
    people, professing the Roman Catholic faith," of assembling, during Lent, "at a certain designated place, for the
    purpose of reading and the life, passion and death of Jesus Christ. A book known as the 'Vida, Pasion y Muerte de
    Jesucristo', which contains a fun account in verse of the life, passion and death of Jesus Christ, is used in this
    celebration." The pabasa  in Macalong used to begin on Palm Sunday and continue day and night, without any
    interruption whatsoever, until Good Friday. As usual, refreshment and food were served in the yard adjoining the chapel,
    and the expenses incidental thereto were defrayed by different persons.

    While the pabasa was going on the evening of April 10, 1933, between 11 and 12 o'clock, the defendants Procopio
    Reyes, Policarpio Nacana, Florentino Clemente, Hermogenes Mallari, Marcelino Mallari, Castor Alipio, and Rufino
    Matias arrived at the place, carrying bolos and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of
    the chapel. Alfonso Castillo, who was chairman of the committee in charge of the  pabasa, tried to persuade them to
    refrain from carrying out their plan, by reminding them of the fact that it was Holy Week and that it was highly improper to
    construct a fence at that time of the evening. A verbal altercation ensued. When the people attending the  noticed, they
    left the place hurriedly and in such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over.
    The pabasa was discontinued and it was not resumed until after an investigation conducted by the chief of police on the
    following morning, which investigation led to the filing of the complaint appearing on pages 1 and 2 of the record. 

    Many years ago the Clemente family by informal donation gave the land on which the old chapel was erected.
    When it was destroyed, the present chapel was erected, and there is now a dispute as to whether the new chapel
    is not now impinging on the land that belongs to the Clemente family. The appellants are partisans of the
    Clemente family. 

    ISSUE: WON the appellants were correctly convicted by the CFI for violation of Art 133 of the RPC -- NO

    RULING: NO, the appellants are therefore acquitted. But the appellants are to be held guilty of the violation of Art
    287 (Unjust Vexation) of the RPC.

    It is to be noted that Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code punishes acts "notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
    faithful." The construction of a fence, even though irritating and vexatious under the circumstances to those
    present, is not such an act as can be designated as "notoriously offensive to the faithful", as normally such an
    act would be a matter of complete indifference to those not present, no matter how religious a turn of mind they
    might be. 

    The disturbance or interruption of any ceremony of a religious character under the old Penal Code was denounced by
    article 571 and was punished by arrest from one to ten days and a fine of from 15 to 125  pesetas. But this article was
    omitted from the Revised Penal Code and the offense, if any was committed by the appellants, is denounced in article 287
    as an "unjust vexation" and punished by arresto menor  or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos or both. 

    It is urged upon us that the act of building a fence was innocent and was simply to protect private property
    rights. The fact that this argument is a pretense only is clearly shown by the circumstances under which the fence was
    constructed, namely, late at night and in such a way as to vex and annoy the parties who had gathered to celebrate
    the  pabasa and is further shown by the fact that many of the appellants saw fit to introduce as their defense a false alibi. 

    You might also like