Now, let us tackle the other dimension the Samson Macariola affair…
What is unjust vexation?
Sadly, unjust vexation under our penal laws is undefined, intentionally or otherwise. Some criminal law minds (not criminal minds) think this is a catch-all provision where any crime that it not otherwise defined there will fall under unjust vexation.
So let’s go to dictionary definition of the term.
As defined here, vexation is defined as the act of harassing or causing trouble. So unjust vexation must mean harassing our causing trouble without justifiable reasons.
Can you give examples?
There’s a well-researched blog entry by a Bacolod-based lawyer here that already gave examples, such as:
1. Disturbing and interfering with a religious ceremony;
2. Stopping a jeep and causing a disturbance without just reasons;
3. Embracing and taking hold of the wrist of a complainant;
4. Unjustly cutting off the electricity, water and telephone lines of a tenant
What is the punishment for unjust vexation?
Unjust vexation is punished under the 2nd paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code that says:
“Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.”
Again, a slap in the wrist and very much probationable.
Can Samson Macariola be guilty of unjust vexation?
Of course, given the catch-all nature of this penal provision, he can be liable under it.
IMHO, however, the vexation is justified. I believe that exposing the security risk and blunders of those tasked to protect us is more than enough justification.
As a matter of fact, these blundering security people should be the ones charged for unjust vexation for their huge security blunders.
And there are some people questioning the presence of that catch-all crime in our penal laws in the first place. Some people think this law is unconstitutional.
For more information, read that entry of that Bacolod-based lawyer. He tackled unjust vexation in more detail.
Have a nice weekend…