Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Zamboanga City

MEMORANDUM

Subject : UNJUST VEXATION COMMITTED THROUGH

THE USE OF INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY STILL
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT (RTC)

Date : 23 OCTOBER 2021

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (BP 129) provides for the jurisdiction of Courts
in the Philippines. Under Section 32 of BP 129, the jurisdiction of Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities is
provided as:1

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. — Except in cases falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the
Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal

ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with

imprisonment of not exceeding four years and two months, or a fine of not
more than four thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment,
regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, irrespective of kind,
nature, value, or amount thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the imposable fine does not exceed twenty
thousand pesos.

1Batas Pambansa Blg. 129: “AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUND THEREOF,
AND OF OTHER PURPOSES
 Unjust Vexation, a crime punished by the Revised Penal Code, is covered
by the jurisdiction of the MTCs as the penalty imposed is less than the four-year
and two-month imprisonment. Unjust Vexation is penalized under Paragraph 2
of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, thus:

ARTICLE 287. Light Coercions. — 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 75 pesos.

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor

or a fine ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both.2

Now, due to the passing of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 20123, the penalty for unjust vexation will be increased by one
degree should it be committed “with the use of information and communication
technologies”, thus:
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant
provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one
(1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

Thus, should a person commit unjust vexation through use of information or

technology the penalty is increased from arresto menor to arresto mayor or an
imprisonment of one month and one day to six months.

Under Section 21 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the Regional

Trial Courts have jurisdiction of acts violating the said law, thus:

Section 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction
over any violation of the provisions of this Act. including any violation
committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission.
Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the
Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly
situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to
a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was
in the Philippines.

There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially

trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.

2 Revised Penal Code, Article 287

3 Republic Act No. 10175 also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, .
 ISSUES

I. Whether the crime on unjust vexation by the use of information and

use of technology transforms the crime punishable under R.A.
10175: “The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”

II. Whether Section 21 of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act

of 2012 constitutes an absolute amendment to BP Blg. 129 in
extending the jurisdiction of the RTC to decide crimes committed
by Unjust Vexation with the use of information.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the crime on unjust vexation by the use of information and

use of technology transforms the crime punishable under R.A. 10175:
“The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”

Unjust vexation as defined by the Supreme Court under the case of

4
Renato Baleros, Jr. v. People of the Philippines: “As it were, unjust vexation
exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that
this term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate
an innocent person. The paramount question is whether the offender's act causes
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person
to whom it is directed.”

Unjust Vexation in simplest terms, uses the means of human conduct to

annoy, irritate, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person
without any reason for such cause. Unjust Vexation being broad enough in the
sense of its application, the supreme court makes it apparent in the case of
Renato v. People, that its application 5“includes any human conduct”. Taking

4 Renato Baleros, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006
5 Ibid.
into consideration the legislative intent of the framers of the law, that it can be
any possible means to which unjust vexation can be imposed either verbal,
material, physical or other means for its conduct.

In Statutory Construction we look into the legislative intent of the law, in

this case, to ascertain how unjust vexation is being conducted from the phrase
“includes any human conduct.” That the court applied the law understandably
enough that its application is any human conduct whether it may be personal or
thru some method used to direct it onto an individual for its commission. It also
opens the topic on ascertaining the on how it is interpreted. Under statutory
construction, 6If the statute as a whole fails to indicate the legislative intent
because of ambiguity, the court may look beyond the statute. In this matter it
was focused on the purpose of the law; the reason or cause which induced the
enactment of the law, the mischief to be suppressed, and the policy which
dictated its passage. That the court interpreted the law being that it is within their
authority, 7“for interpretation is a judicial function assigned to the latter by the
fundamental law.” Just as in the case of Renato, the court applies the law, in
interpreting that unjust vexation being broad in its application it was meant of
any human conduct in which unjust vexation can be committed. Thus, by any
means or ways an individual can conduct unjust vexation even with the use of
information and communication technology.

This is also the same in the case of Maderazo vs People, were the court
also added that 8“Compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in the Information,
for the crime of unjust vexation may exist without compulsion or restraint.
However, in unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo, malice is an inherent
element of the crime.” The court, stating that unjust vexation is inherent in
nature, bring forth the intention of criminality of the individual. Notwithstanding
that any compulsion or restraint given on the offender cannot be apparent to
meet the condition on unjust vexation.

6 Statutory Construction by: Agpalo, p. 111

7 Ibid., p. 121
8 Melchor G. Maderazo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, 26 September 2006
 As we define unjust vexation, we also investigate its elements to better
understand the law on unjust vexation. We must also include its element in
determining unjust vexation which are:
1. 9There is human conduct that unjustly annoys or irritates another
person;
2. Such human conduct was not attended with violence;
3. Such human conduct caused annoyance, irritation, torment,
distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed; and
4. Offender acted with criminal intent

In relation to this, we go now to the use of information and technology

system being use in transforming the crime of Unjust Vexation punishable under
the Cybercrime Law, but first we need to define what is “information and
communication technology system.” 10
Under R.A. No. 10175, Sec. 2(z),
“Information and communication technology system refers to system intended
for, and capable of, generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise
processing electronic data messages or electronic documents, and includes the
computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored,
and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic data message
or electronic document;”

From the definition above, information and communication technology

system are methods of how information or communication is being distributed
by means of any electronic devices that translate the words or actions direct to
the person to which it is intended. Example of this is the use of cellphones in

9 Elements of unjust vexation are: (1) there is human conduct that unjustly annoys or irritates another
person, (2) such human conduct was not attended with violence, (3) such human conduct caused
annoyance, irritation. Torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed,
and (4) offender acted with criminal intent. https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/you-are-annoying/
10 Information and communication technology system refers to system intended for, and capable of,

generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic
documents, and includes the computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or
stored, and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic data message or electronic
document; Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), Section 2(z)
texting, video calling, or calling the other thru this type of method of
communication of certain information such individual portrays.

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act it also imposes list of Cybercrime

offenses, which are considered to be under the R.A. 10175. One of this in
particular is the offense for 11“violation of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
through the use of information and communication technology system: All
crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
criminal laws committed by, through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of the
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than
that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as
the case may be.”

Given all this information, Unjust Vexation with the use of information and
communication technology can be transformed to a crime punished under the
Cybercrime Prevention act of 2012. This is so, based first on how the court
defines the use of unjust vexation. By interpreting the law as including any human
conduct, meaning the use of any method made by the individual like technology
with criminal intent can commit the crime in distressing, tormenting, annoying,
irritating or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed without
any caused or reason in doing so. An example can be is hacking, as defined in an
article 12“Hacking is the catch-all term for any type of misuse of a computer to
break the security of another computing system to steal data, corrupt systems or
files, commandeer the environment or disrupt data-related activities in any way.”
Hacking can be use by certain individuals in accessing the computer of another,
corrupting data or misuse the computer of others. This can lead to unjust
vexation as it develops into a situation it annoys or irritates the person being
directed, from the stress of losing important documents or files in his or her
computer.

11 Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 under Section 7

12 https://www.techopedia.com/definition/26361/hacking
 Unjust vexation can also be associated when in cases of Cyber Libel, which
under R.A. 10175 explains that:
13
“Libel - the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel, as defined in Article 355 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system
or any other similar means which may be devised in the future shall be
punished with prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in
its minimum period or a fine ranging from Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) up
to the maximum amount determined by Court, or both, in addition to the civil
action which may be brought by the offended party: Provided, That this
provision applies only to the original author of the post or online libel, and not
to others who simply receive the post and react to it.”

This is more apparent due to the situation of COVID-19 without the need of
face-to-face interactions, people now resort to online messaging, video calling,
or emailing in conveying their thoughts and ideas for their conversations. In libel
it is the defamation of an individual being directed to, when in relation to unjust
vexation it can cause annoyance, distress, irritation, torment, or disturbance of
the mind of the individual directed to. Libel and Unjust vexation can co-exist in
this manner of committing the crime just by means of saying or telling someone
that they are stupid, boring, and ugly and no one will ever like them for how they
are or something like that. It transforms the crime into such a serious offense
that it cannot be ignored.

In the situation above, when using technology to commit such a crime it

deepens the crime, without the need for fact-to-face it further give the notion to
the person being directed the more uneasiness of the situation. Having no direct
confrontation to the matter, increases the distress in resolving the issue making
it greater than it usually is.

Therefore, Unjust Vexation with the use of Information and technology can
be punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Transforming the
crime from a simple offense punishable under 14Art. 287 of the Revised Penal

13 Republic Act No. 10175, Section 4(C-3)

14 Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
Code with a penalty arresto menor or a fine of 5 to 200 or both, however, was
amended by 15R.A. 10951, Section 73, making the fine form 1,000 pesos to
40,000 pesos or both, to a crime punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention
Act of 2012

II. Whether Section 21 of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act

of 2012 constitutes an absolute amendment to BP Blg. 129 in extending
the jurisdiction of the RTC to decide crimes committed by Unjust
Vexation with the use of information.

In this case we consider the legal maxim 16“Generalia Specialibus non Derogant
– A general law does not nullify a specific or special law,” we use this maxim to
better understand or construe Sec. 21 of R.A. 10175 with BP Blg. 129 together,
taking into consideration as Section 21 of R.A. 10175 being an exception to the
rule in BP Blg. 129. Since there is no express repeal made by R.A. 10175 in
extending the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to decide upon cases
under Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Amendments as defined under 17

Art. XVII, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution, its guiding original intention is to improve specific parts or add to
new provisions or to suppress existing ones according as addition or subtraction
might be demanded by existing condition. With this in mind, Section 21 of R.A.
10175 is seen as an addition to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in their capacity to decide cases which are punishable under the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012. The provision mentioned, does not indicate any express
repealing action against the general law which is BP Blg. 129 for the jurisdiction
of the RTC. It merely adds to their jurisdiction in deciding cases. Repeal only
happens when the law so provides for its express or implied repeal. One example
is in the case of 18Tomawis v. Balindong, were the court said that “we must read

15 Section 73 of Republic Act No. 10951, “An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage

on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the
Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code", as Amended”
16 Statutory Construction by: Suarez, p. 183 – 185
17 The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer 2011 edition, by: Bernas p. 541-542
18 Tomawis v. Balindong, G.R. No. 182434
and construe BP Blg. 129 and P.D. 1083 together, then by taking PD 1083 as an
exception to the general law to reconcile the two laws. This is so since the
legislature has not made any express repeal or modification of PD 1083, and it is
well-settled that repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. Implied
repeals will not be declared unless the intent of the legislators is manifest.”

We assumed that the laws are passed only after careful consideration and
deliberation upon checking with current provisions on the subject matter. That
the legislature in its enactment of new provision or laws follows with it the non-
interference of other statutes in its enactment or to abrogate the former law in
relation to the subject. Again, it is only when the legislature repeals the law which
the former law is dissolve. As mentioned since Section 21 of R.A. 10175 laws
out the ground for the RTC’s jurisdiction over cybercrime cases. It only up to
the point of it being an exception to the rule under BP Blg. 129 amending the
rules for cases punishable with the use of information and technology under R.A.
10175 to be triable by the RTC.

Thus, the Regional Trial Court of the Philippines has the authority to
decide upon cases under cybercrime law. Where unjust vexation to the use of
information and technology in committing the crime can be punishable under
Section 21 of the cybercrime law. Being that it is an exception to the jurisdiction
that can be governed by the RTC.