Apparently a fat lady was told to get off the jeepney recently. This resulted in a complaint filed by her and a reminder from the LTFRB that fat people cannot be refused passage.
 |
| https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1226739 |
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) on Tuesday reminded transport operators and drivers that they cannot force a passenger to get out of a vehicle due to body size or physical appearance.
In a statement, the LTFRB said body shaming and discrimination of passengers is against the agency's policies.
"PUV drivers are not allowed to double or triple the fare depending on the passengers' physique," the statement read.
The LTFRB issued the statement after a female passenger was forced off a jeepney by the driver due to her physical size in Parañaque City.
The passenger, who filed a police report against the driver for unjust vexation, also reached out to the LTFRB on Monday and was assisted by the agency's legal department.
While the driver violated LTFRB policy he certainly did not commit a crime. Yet the offended lady "filed a police report against the driver for unjust vexation." What is unjust vexation? Essentially it is annoying someone.
Did you know that the act of annoying someone is a crime? Yes, it is and we certainly are not pulling your leg. The act of annoying someone is called unjust vexation and considered a form of light coercion punishable under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
“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 One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to not more than Forty Thousand (P40,000.00), or both.
Consequently, unjust vexation is punishable by imprisonment ranging from 1 day to 30 days and/or a fine of P1,000.00 to P40,000.00. Yes, you read it right – an annoying person can be imprisoned or slapped with a fine that should have just been used to buy a new cellphone.
Oh, and yes. You can sue that annoying neighbor who sings at the top of his lungs every night for unjust vexation.
https://ndvlaw.com/annoying-someone-is-a-crime-updated-last-10-june-2020/
The fat lady who was mocked by the jeepeney driver for her extra poundage claims she was traumatised.
The 29-year-old complainant, Joysh Gutierrez, recounted her ordeal in a post on Facebook, which has since become viral.
Gutierrez said that she and a co-worker got on a Baclaran-bound jeepney with license plate NWJ 221 at a passenger stop in Multinational Village along Dr. A Santos Avenue. However, the driver and his wife, who was also on board, told her to alight from the vehicle because she was chubby, saying that the vehicle might suffer a flat tire.
According to Gutierrez, she vehemently protested being discriminated against and even offered to pay a higher fare. The other passengers came to her defense but she said the jeepney driver and his wife continued to shame and insult her. The driver also deliberately slowed down the vehicle in an apparent attempt to mock her weight.
In an interview over radio station dwPM, Gutierrez said she was traumatized by her experience, adding that she would always remember it whenever she gets on a jeepney. She also said that she was determined to pursue charges against the respondents. In a TV interview, Gutierrez added that while she was used to being bullied over her weight, what the jeepney driver did was far worse than she had experienced before.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1950645/body-shamed-passenger-files-complaint-vs-jeepney-driver-owners
Does being traumatized meet the definition of unjust vexation? A close reading of the law says no because the term unjust vexation is not defined. In 2009 Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a resolution to amend RPC article 287 to define unjust vexation.
Unjust vexation is punished under the 2nd paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Peiial Code:
“Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arrest0 menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.”
It is a well-established doctrine that a criminal or penal legislation must clearly define or specify the particular acts or omissions punished.
Unlike the crimes of theft, murder and rape that are specifically defined in the Revised Penal Code, the definition of the crime of unjust vexation is conspicuously absent. Because of this Article 287, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code that punishes “unjust vexation” suffers from congenital defects and may be declared unconstitutional for the following reasons:
a) Article 287, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code condemns no specific or definite act or omission thus failing to define any crime or felony;
b) Said penal provision is so indefinite, vague and overbroad as not to enable it to be known what act is forbidden;
c) Such vagueness and overbreadth result to violation of the due process clause and the right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged; and
d) Such vagueness and overbreadth likewise amount to an invalid delegation by Congress of its legislative power to the courts to determine what acts should be held criminal and punishable.
The state having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what act or acts shall constitute a crime. Hence, the instant bill seeks to provide a legal defiiiitioii for the crime of “unjust vexation” and provide the corresponding penalty for its commission.
This resolution was never acted on and unjust vexation remains an undefined crime to this day. However, in 2006 the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to define unjust vexation in a ruling.
The second paragraph of the Article 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. However, in unjust vexation, being a felony by dolo, 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. The main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust vexation 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.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_165065_2006.html
In 2021 the SC issued another ruling defining unjust vexation saying "it basically penalizes acts intended to cause emotional distress."
The petition is without merit. Herein petitioner insists on his innocence and alleges that the ruling of the CA is not in accord with applicable law and jurisprudence. Herein petitioner claims that based on the account of the minor victim, the act of masturbation was not done with the participation of and was not directed at her, hence, he should be penalized with unjust vexation under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as it basically punishes acts which is intended to cause emotional distress.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jan2021/gr_246231_2021.html
Where in RPH article 287 is a single word said about "emotional distress?" No where. The SC is basically making it up as they go.
What we see is that not even the Supreme Court can give a precise definition of RPC article 287. Unjust vexation remains a very broad term subject to interpretation not on objective facts but on circumstance. That is what one Philippine law firm says.
Definition and Scope
Unjust vexation is a catch-all offense under Philippine law, often utilized when specific crimes cannot be easily categorized. Under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, unjust vexation is defined as any human conduct that causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of another person.
Elements of the Offense
To successfully prosecute someone for unjust vexation, the following elements must typically be present:
Act or Omission: An action or a failure to act by the accused that causes vexation to another person.
Intent: A general criminal intent to vex, annoy, or irritate must be present.
Interpretations and Case Law
Due to its broad scope, jurisprudence on unjust vexation is varied. Courts consider the social and psychological impact on the complainant, the intent of the accused, and the surrounding circumstances when determining guilt or innocence.
Conclusion
Unjust vexation serves as an adaptable tool within the Philippine legal framework for addressing minor offenses that cause emotional or psychological harm. Understanding its scope and limitations can be crucial for both complainants and defendants navigating the legal landscape.
https://www.respicio.ph/features/unjust-vexation-philippines
Unjust vexation is an adaptable tool to address minor offenses that cause emotional or psychological distress? It's as catch-all used when the crime cannot be categorized? That's not law. Laws are defined offenses. They are objective. A law is not a catch-all or adaptable tool for alleged crimes that cannot be categorized or defined. To go by that admission is to admit there is no such crime as unjust vexation that can be categorized or defined.
Note that while this law firm says RPH article 287 "unjust vexation is defined as any human conduct that causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of another person" that is simply not the case. The law offers no such definition. Doesn't every crime contain an element of "annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind?" Of course they do.
Funny that the late Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago was sharp enough to point out the fact that unjust vexation is undefined and so broad "as not to enable it to be known what act is forbidden." She also authored her resolution 3 years after the Supreme Court gave a tenuous definition in a 2006 ruling. Why has no one else pointed out this fact? Why do Philippine law firms claim that RPC article 287 is defined when it is not?
Unjust vexation is simply a way for aggrieved parties to vex the alleged perpetrators. And why then shouldn't those charged with unjust vexation counter file for the same? After all being charged with a crime can cause emotional and psychological distress. In fact this jeepney driver says he was defamed by this obese woman.
 |
| https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1950890/driver-on-body-shaming-issue-is-sorry-but-claims-his-image-was-also-ruined |
"We apologize sincerely. But what about the defamation that almost ruined our reputation around the world?"
The driver’s partner stressed that Gutierrez also needs to apologize to them.
"For me, she also made a mistake. As a person, she needs to apologize. What she did was defamation. It could have been settled by talking."
But the driver and his partner claimed that the incident in the video was not their first encounter with Gutierrez.
"She once rode with us in the small jeep. We already had arguments. In that small jeep, during our first argument, I asked her to move, but she refused to do so."
In the viral video, the driver’s partner said that she reminded Gutierrez of their first encounter.
"I said, “Miss, you might get angry again.”
According to her, Gutierrez replied with confusion, saying that it was her first time to ride their jeepney.
"She became hysterical when I was explaining things to her. When she became hysterical, she was out of control. There was no video of that."
She stressed that Gutierrez even cursed the driver and mocked his source of livelihood.
“You only work as a driver yet your attitude is like that.”
Sounds like there is more to the story and the driver was unjustly vexed by the passenger.
But since the crime of unjust vexation is not defined it does not exist. It is quite ridiculous that in the Philippines being rude is a crime the courts are too ready to prosecute. The existence of this undefined statue in RPC article 287 is another proof the Philippine justice system is broken.
No comments:
Post a Comment