[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
31 views2 pages

People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369

In the case of People v. Reyes, the defendants were involved in a verbal altercation during a religious event known as pabasa, where they attempted to construct a fence in front of a chapel. The court ruled that while their actions were irritating, they did not violate Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to acts offensive to the faithful. Instead, they were found guilty of 'unjust vexation' under Article 287, as their actions were intended to annoy those celebrating the pabasa.

Uploaded by

rudilynpalero1022
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views2 pages

People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369

In the case of People v. Reyes, the defendants were involved in a verbal altercation during a religious event known as pabasa, where they attempted to construct a fence in front of a chapel. The court ruled that while their actions were irritating, they did not violate Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to acts offensive to the faithful. Instead, they were found guilty of 'unjust vexation' under Article 287, as their actions were intended to annoy those celebrating the pabasa.

Uploaded by

rudilynpalero1022
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v. Reyes, 60 Phil.

369

FACTS:
In the barrio of Macalong, La Paz, Tarlac, there is a chapel where it is customary to hold
what is known in local parlance as a pabasa. This is done during the holy week. Pabasa
is applied to act of the people, professing their Roman Catholic faith. The pabasa in
Macalong would continue day and night, without any interruption whatsoever, until Good
Friday. After the service is done, refreshments and food would be served for the
attendants in the chapel’s yard.
One night, around 11 to 12 o’clock, while the pabasa was on going, Procopio Reyes,
together with the other defendant-appellants, arrived at the place carrying some
equipment such as bolo and the like to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the
chapel
which they started immediately. The chairman of the committee in charge of the pabasa
tried to persuade them to refrain from carrying out their plan that later led to a verbal
altercation and chaos. This cause the attending people to get excited that those who are
eating in the yard left the benches toppled and the dishes broken.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Procopio Reyes, et al., are liable for the violation of Article 133 of the
Revised Penal Code.

RULING:
No, they did not violate Article 133, rather they are found guilty of a violation of Article
287 of the Revised Penal Code. 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.
The construction of a fence late at night is clearly to vex and annoy the parties
celebrating the pabasa.

You might also like