You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC)
Branch 123,1 Las Piñas City

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff
,
Crim. Case No. 64227
For : Unjust Vexation

- versus -

MARIA THERESA VIRIÑA,


Accuse
d.
x----------------------------------------x

DECISION

On February 25, 2011,2 the Office of the City Prosecutor Las Piñas
City filed an Information charging accused Maria Theresa Viriña (Viriña)
with the crime of Unjust Vexation as penalized in Article 287 of the
Revised Penal Code.

The accusatory portion of the Information3 reads:

“That on sometime in March 2009 in the City of Las


Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court the above-named accused, without
authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously vex private complainant ATTY. ROXANNE MARIE
A. JAMELA-MIRANDA by pretending to borrow 27 original
Allied Bank check to compare the same with the photocopies
only to take the original checks anyway without returning
and without complainant’s consent thereby causing
annoyance and irritation to said complainant.

Contrary to law.”

1 Initially handled by the undersigned as Assisting Judge per Administrative Order No. 150 -2016 dated
August 31, 2016. This case was transferred to Branch 123 per Administrative Order 97-2017 dated June 1,
2017.
2 Handled by Hon. Judge Ralph S. Arellano when he was still Assisting Judge in Branch 79, METC Branch 79, Las
Piñas City.
3 Records, p. 1.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 2 of 8

When arraigned on April 7, 2011, accused Viriña pleaded “NOT


GUILTY” to the offense.4 Per report of the Philippine Mediation Center
(PMC) dated May 27, 2011, the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement of the civil aspect of the case.

On June 10, 2011, pre-trial proper was terminated after the


prosecution and the defense stipulated on the identity of the accused as
the same person named in the Information and the territorial jurisdiction
of the court. The prosecution and defense likewise marked and listed
their respective documentary exhibits and witnesses. Due to failure of
Viriña to appear despite notice, a Warrant of Arrest was issued against
her.5 On July 15, 2011, accused posted bond.

Thereafter, trial ensued.

On October 20, 2011, the prosecution presented Atty. Roxanne


Marie Jamela Miranda (private complainant), as its sole witness who
testified based on her Complaint-Affidavit, 6 as follows: that she is a
resident of Km. 18, Alabang-Zapote Road corner Fesan Court, Talon Dos,
1747, Las Piñas City; that accused Viriña is the sister of Joseph Agtarap
(Agtarap), who is private complainant’s client; that there were several
transactions entered by Agtarap and the accused with a certain third
party; that during one of their several meetings, Agtarap openly
discussed the development of the cases and instructed the private
complainant to coordinate with accused Viriña as the latter may be of
help, particularly in pursuing a case against Agtarap’s former lawyer;
that the case involves the recovery of more or less Eight Million Pesos (Ᵽ
8,000,000.00) from the former lawyer of Agtarap; that accused Viriña
became interested in the said case and requested that she be given
photocopies of the encashed checks by Agtarap’s former counsel so she
can allegedly help follow-up with the owner of Allied Bank for the
retrieval of whatever document necessary for the case; that being a flight
attendant at that time, accused Viriña represented that she was in
speaking terms with one of the owners of Allied Bank; and that Agtarap
agreed that the said photocopies be given to his sister, accused Viriña;
sometime in March 2009, accused Viriña came to her office and
reiterated her request to secure possession of the photocopies of the
checks subject of Agtarap’s case; such request was granted considering
that all the original checks are in her legal custody as Agtarap’s counsel;
while she was in the office, accused Viriña even requested if she could
compare the original checks with the photocopies given; subsequently,
however, when private complainant asked her secretary why the original
checks were no longer in the envelope where she kept them, she
discovered that without her consent, accused Viriña took all the original
checks; private complainant’s secretary then informed her that the
original checks were taken by accused Viriña who placed the same inside
her bag; not knowing that the checks were taken without the permission
of private complainant, the secretary said nothing about the incident;

4 Records, p. 40.
5 Records, pp. 58-59.
6 Records, pp. 8-12.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 3 of 8

thereafter, private complainant sent several texts messages to accused


Viriña, inquiring if the original checks were in her possession; private
complainant demanded the return of all of them as they are pieces of
evidence for their case, she then informed Agtarap that all original
checks were taken by her sister without her knowledge; despite repeated
text messages sent, accused Viriña failed to return them; on May 23,
2009, accused Viriña sent the complainant a text message and a note
saying that she had placed the issued checks in her bank safety deposit
box and would bring them in case the same were needed in one of the
hearings; since then, accused had not communicated with private
complainant; on March 24, 2009, Agtarap terminated the legal services
of the private complainant due to financial constraints; and on the same
day, private complainant likewise sent Agtarap a letter, likewise
terminating her legal engagement.

On cross-examination,7 private complainant testified that: she


merely showed accused Viriña the original checks but she did not
personally hand over them to her; that the initial complaint-affidavit that
she had executed against accused Viriña was for Theft but the same was
downgraded to Unjust Vexation; that her legal engagement as Agtarap’s
lawyer was terminated due to lack of communication with the latter; and,
it took her more than six (6) months from the time accused took hold of
the checks before filing of the case for theft because she was trying to
retrieve the originals.

On re-direct examination,8 private complainant reiterated that she


was gravely annoyed upon the refusal of accused Viriña to return the
checks; that such feeling was rooted on the possibility that Agtarap
might file charges against her for losing custody over the subject original
checks; and that for such annoyance and she believed that she was
entitled to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos to Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (Ᵽ 300,000.00 to Ᵽ 500,000.00) as damages.

On re-cross examination,9 private complainant admitted that she


filed the case against accused Viriña subsequent to the termination of
her services as lawyer of Agtarap.

On May 14, 2014, the prosecution formally offered its evidence.10

7 TSN, June 7, 2012, pp.1-24.


8 TSN, May 8, 2014, pp. 1-6.
9 TSN, May 8, 2014, pp. 6-8.
10 Exhibit A - Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag Rereklamo.
Exhibit B - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024813
Exhibit C - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024840.
Exhibit D - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024841.
Exhibit E - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024835.
Exhibit F - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024815.
Exhibit G - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024837.
Exhibit H - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024816
Exhibit I - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024818.
Exhibit J - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024819.
Exhibit K - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024821.
Exhibit L - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024820
Exhibit M - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024822.
Exhibit N - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024823.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 4 of 8

On May 29, 2014, accused Viriña moved for leave of court to file
Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove
the essential elements of Unjust Vexation.11 The same was opposed on the
ground that the accused has yet to file a comment to its formal offer of
evidence and the court has yet to rule on its admission.

On July 3, 2014, the court denied the motion for leave for being
premature.12

On July 11, 2014, without any comment or objection by the


defense, the court admitted all the offered exhibits including its sub-
markings as evidence for the prosecution.

On August 29, 2014,13 the court resolved that the prosecution had
already established a prima facie case for the crime charged. Thus, the
need to continue with trial.

Thereafter, during presentation of defense evidence, 14 accused


Viriña identified her Judicial Affidavit where she denied all the
allegations and maintained that there was an understanding between
private complainant and her brother that the checks will be returned to
the latter for safekeeping. She claimed that per her brother’s
instructions, she went to the private complainant to retrieve the originals
of the checks. During her visit, private complainant voluntarily handed
to her the original checks after she had used the bathroom. Accused
Viriña thought it as incredible that private complainant only inquired
about the checks when she needed them. Further, by way of a note, she
had guaranteed the return of the checks upon need of private
complainant.

Cross-examination of accused was considered waived on the


ground of private complainant’s failure to appear during the hearing. 15

Exhibit O - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024824.


Exhibit P - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024828.
Exhibit Q - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024829.
Exhibit R - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024830.
Exhibit S - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024832.
Exhibit T - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024831.
Exhibit U - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024834.
Exhibit V - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024839.
Exhibit W - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024842.
Exhibit X - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024848.
Exhibit Y - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024843.
Exhibit Z - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024849.
Exhibit AA - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024850.
Exhibit BB - ALLIED BANK Check No. AAA-0024844.
Exhibit CC - Letter dated March 23, 2009.
Exhibit DD - Letter dated March 24, 2009.
Exhibit EE - Termination of Legal Engagement.
Exhibit FF - Sinumpaang Salaysay Ng Pagtetistigo.
11 Records, pp. 128-129.
12 Records, p. 136.
13 Records, p. 183.
14 TSN, March 5, 2015, pp.1-10.
15 TSN, March 5, 2015, p. 10.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 5 of 8

Pursuant to Administrative Order 150-2016 dated August 31,


2016, the undersigned judge was designated as Assisting Judge in
Branch 79, Metropolitan Trial Court, Las Piñas City to handle the
pending cases of former Assisting Judge Ralph S. Arellano.

On December 2, 2016,16 the defense manifested that it was


constrained to dispense with the presentation of its last witness as the
same could no longer be located.

On February 20, 2017, accused through her counsel, filed a


Formal Offer of Evidence.17

On March 3, 2017, acting on the Formal Offer of Evidence filed by


accused, court resolved to admit Exhibits “1”, “2”, “3” and “4” together
with their submarkings as part of the testimony of the witness of the
defense.18

Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision.

The Issue

The court is now tasked to resolve the issue of whether or not the
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
is guilty of committing the crime of unjust vexation.

The Ruling

The offense of Unjust Vexation is defined and penalized in Art. 287


of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

“Art. 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.”

Unjust Vexation is a form of light coercion. In penalizing coercion


and unjust vexation, the law only has one purpose, that is precisely 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. It is unlawful for any
person to take into his own hands the administration of justice.”19 The

16 Records, p. 287.
17 Records, pp. 289-294.
18 Records, p. 307.
19 Maderazo, Perido, and Maderazo, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 6 of 8

Supreme Court declared that the said offense 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.20

As ruled in the case of Ballesteros, Jr. vs. People,21 to establish


unjust vexation the offender must have caused either of the following: (a)
annoyance; (b) irritation; (c) torment; (d) distress; or (e) disturbance to
the mind of the person to whom it is directed.

However, unjust vexation, remains as a felony by dolo. Thus, malice


is an inherent element of the crime. Good faith is a good defense to a
charge for unjust vexation because good faith negates malice. 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.22

In the case at bench, the prosecution simply claimed that the act
of accused Viriña in taking the original checks without permission had
caused annoyance, distress and irritation to the private complainant.
This was solely based on private complainant’s testimony where she
recounted her discovery that the checks were missing after accused
Viriña’s visit to her law office.

For her part, the accused maintained that the private complainant
willingly turned over the original checks to her as she asked for them
upon the instructions of her brother who was the client of private
complainant. She, likewise, insisted that had she really taken the checks
in a clandestine fashion, private complainant would have known the
same immediately. More importantly, she expressly assured private
complainants that the checks would be returned when needed for her
brother’s case.

Judicious review of the evidence presented in this case leads the


court to ascribe credence to the defense of the accused. As stated, unjust
vexation lies whenever annoyance to a person is caused by way of a
malicious act. To the court’s mind, the prosecution was not able to
wholly establish bad faith on the part of the accused. The prosecution
was not able to prove malice on the part of the accused. Further, it was
not disputed that accused Viriña was indeed introduced by Agtarap to
the pc as not just his sister but a person with whom she may coordinate
in the preparation of filing of cases. Thus, accused Viriña’s participation
therein was neither odd nor peculiar. Her request to take the same was
in fact entertained by private complainant in her law office.

Now, as to the taking of the original checks, allegedly without


permission as to have caused annoyance to the private complainant, the
prosecution only had the private complainant’s testimony as support.

20 Ibid.
21 G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006.
22 People v. Sumingwa, GR No. 183619, October 13, 2009.
DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 7 of 8

Expectedly, this was denied by the accused by saying that the private
complainant willingly gave her the checks. As the operative act
considered as the root of the annoyance caused, it is important to
establish the taking of the checks without permission. On this core, the
prosecution’s evidence was wanting.

It is worthy of note that the supposed eyewitness to taking of the


checks by stealth was not presented at all. It is elementary in the Rules
of Evidence that a sworn statement that has not been subject to cross-
examination deserves scant probative value. This has precisely produced
doubt as to alleged malicious taking of the original copies of the checks
by the accused. More importantly, the court considers the note given by
accused to the private complainant guaranteeing the return of the
checks as an effective negation of bad faith. In other words, the act of
the accused in assuring the private complainant of the return of the
checks was an expression that was meant to simmer down private
complainant’s feelings. Resultantly, the intent to annoy or to vex was
refuted.

It would have been different had Agtarap took the witness stand
and testified as to the lack of authority by the accused in ‘taking” the
checks as this would have confirmed bad faith on the part of the accused
and defined her act of taking the original checks as ill-motivated. Simply
put, this case involves two entirely opposing factual versions.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, the testimony of private complainant
fell short. The prosecution, likewise, chose to waive its right to cross-
examine the accused and show or exhibit any falsehood of her defense.

The court subscribes to the significance of unjust vexation as


somewhat a catch all provision that aims to penalize human conduct
that causes annoyance, distress, vexation to another. Nonetheless, not
any act of annoyance is covered by the provision absent proof that the
act was characterized by malice and bad faith.

The constitution demands that the accused is presumed innocent


until the charge is true. In this jurisdiction, proof beyond reasonable
doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 23 In this case, the court
was not at all convinced of the criminal intent by the accused.

Wherefore, for failure of the prosecution to establish guilt of the


accused beyond reasonable doubt in the commission of the offense
charged, accused MARIA TERESA VIRIÑA is hereby ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.

Given in open court.


City of Las Piñas, January 22, 2018.

23 People v. Maraorao, GR No. 174369, June 20, 2012.


DECISION
Criminal Case No. 64227
People of the Philippines v. Maria Theresa Viriña
For Unjust Vexation
Page 8 of 8

KAREN S. CANULLAS – ARMADA


Judge

Copy furnished:

ACP Norman P. Torneros Atty. Roxanne Marie A. Jamela –


Office of the City Prosecutor Miranda
Hall of Justice, Las Pinas City Km. 18, Alabang-Zapote Road cor. Fesan
Court, Talon Dos, Las Pinas City

Atty. John Darwin Y. Cunanan Maria Theresa Viriña


Public Attorney’s Office 11 Sampaguita, Tahanan Village,
Hall of Justice, Las Pinas City Paranaque City

You might also like