✅
Maderazo vs. People, G.R.
No.165065, September 26, 2006
MELCHOR G. MADERAZO, SENIFORO PERIDO, and VICTOR MADERAZO,
JR., petitioners,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. 165065
September 26, 2006
DOCTRINE
The second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code 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.
FACTS
Verutiao averred that Municipal Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984, provides that, to
facilitate the development of the public market, in the absence of adequate
government finance, construction by private parties of buildings and other
structures for commercial purposes may be allowed and the expenses thereof
shall be reimbursed to the builder by applying 50% to the monthly rentals when
occupied for business.
She spent P24,267.00 on the construction of the market stall. She was not,
however, reimbursed by the Municipality for her expenses. After the construction,
she then opened the stall for business. She paid the rent for the whole year of
1992 but did not pay the rentals in 1993.
On January 13, 1994, Verutiao and the Municipality entered into a one-year lease
contract, renewable every year with a monthly rental of P400.00. It is also
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No.165065, September 26, 2006 1
provided that, any violation of the conditions therein agreed shall be sufficient
cause for its cancellation, even though the contract has not yet expired.
In 1995, the Municipality partially paid her P10,000.00 of her total expenses in the
construction of the market stall. However, considering that she had not been fully
reimbursed for her expenses for the construction of the stall, she did not pay her
rent. Almost weekly, she went to the Municipal Treasurer to request for the
reimbursement. The treasurers did not collect her rents for they knew that the
Municipality still owed her money.
On January 17, 1997, she and her husband received a letter order from Mayor
Melchor Maderazo, directing her to vacate the stall within twenty-four (24) hours
because she failed to pay the rentals for the stall. As of January 1997, Verutiao had
an unpaid rental of P2,532.00, after deducting her expenses for the construction
of the stall. The Mayor declared in his letter that the lease contract had been
canceled.
On the same day, the spouses Verutiao, through counsel, sent a letter to the
Mayor, stating, among others, that they could only be ejected from the market stall
if the Municipality reimbursed them for what they had advanced for the
construction of the stall and if the Municipality was no longer willing to lease the
subject premises. They admitted that Verutiao had not paid any rent since 1993
but maintained that, under Section 38 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1984, she did
not have to pay rental until her expenses were reimbursed, as the rentals due
would be debited from 50% of the amount she advanced for the construction of
the market stall, and that she will vacate the stall only after the municipality shall
have reimbursed her expenses in the construction.
On January 21, 1997, Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased premises. The locks
were opened on the authority of the Mayor on January 27, 1997. The contents of
the market stall were inventoried by Victor Maderazo and taken to the police
station for safekeeping. While these were being undertaken, Verutiao was on her
farm about 4 to 5 kilometers away from the market stall. She considered the act
of the Mayor as a political harassment, given that her husband, was then a
candidate for councilor under the ticket of the opposition; and that she was a
leader of the opposing party.
On September 3, 2004, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment convicting the
accused Melchor G. Maderazo, Seniforo Perido, and Victor Maderazo, Jr. of the
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No.165065, September 26, 2006 2
crime of unjust vexation. The court ruled that Melchor Maderazo had no authority
to padlock, open, and inventory the contents of the subject stall and take the same
to the police station. Although he had the power to cancel the lease contract, as
Mayor, he could not eject the lessee by padlocking the market stall and ordering
the hauling and seizure of the goods contained therein. The remedies of the
Municipality in cases where there is delinquency in the payment of fees and
rentals are provided in the Local Government Code.
The court ruled that the accused could not, however, be convicted of grave
coercion because they did not use violence, threats, or intimidation. Verutiao
could not have possibly been intimidated or forced by the accused, as she was
not at the market stall when the same was padlocked, and its goods inventoried
and hauled. The court, however, held the said accused criminally liable for
unjust vexation even if the private complainant was not at the stall because the
overt acts of the accused caused her annoyance, irritation, and vexation. The
court ruled that if the second element of grave coercion under Article 286, par. 1
of the Revised Penal Code is lacking, the crime committed falls under the second
paragraph of Article 287 of the same Code.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are guilty of unjust vexation.
HELD
YES, the petitioners are guilty of unjust vexation.
The second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code 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. 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. The law's main purpose of penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is to
enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our
government is one of law, not of men.
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No.165065, September 26, 2006 3
We agree with the respondent's contention that based on the evidence on record,
the overt acts of petitioners Mayor Melchor Maderazo and Victor Maderazo, Jr.,
on January 27, 1997, annoyed, irritated and caused embarrassed to her. It was
petitioner Melchor Maderazo who ordered petitioner Victor Maderazo, Jr. to have
the stall reopened, to conduct an inventory of the contents thereof, and to effect
the transportation of the goods to the police station. Petitioner Victor Maderazo,
a Sangguniang Bayan member, obeyed the order of the Mayor.
Although Verutiao was not at her stall when it was unlocked, and the contents
thereof taken from the stall and brought to the police station, the crime of unjust
vexation was nevertheless committed. For the crime to exist, the offended party
doesn't need to be present when said petitioners committed the crime. It is
enough that the private complainant was embarrassed, annoyed, irritated, or
disturbed when she learned of the overt acts of the petitioners. Indeed, by their
collective acts, petitioners evicted Verutiao from her stall and prevented her from
selling therein, hence, losing income from the business. Verutiao was deprived of
her possession of the stall from January 21, 1997.
FALLO
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner
Seniforo Perido is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The bail bond posted by him
for his provisional liberty is canceled. No costs.
OTHER INFORMATION
Unjust vexation
An unjust vexation is a form of light coercion that 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.
Maderazo vs. People, G.R. No.165065, September 26, 2006 4
