7920

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
MARIVELES, BATAAN

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM CASE NO. 22-10858

For: Unjust Vexation

PATTI RAMEL AFRICA,

Accused.
x-----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

Accused, by counsel, avers:

1. The felony of unjust vexation is punishable by

arresto menor or a fine ranging from P1,000 to not more than
P40,000, or both (Art. 287, Revised Penal Code). Being a light
felony it prescribes in two months (Art. 9 in relation to Art. 90,
Revised Penal Code).

2. The alleged Facebook post which vexed the private

complainant was posted in 2017 while the complaint was filed
in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor only in 2021.

3. Since the complaint for unjust vexation was filed

only in 2021 or more than two months after it happened, the
same has already prescribed.

4. Offenses within the authority of the lupon which are

filed in court without prior barangay conciliation are
premature and dismissible (Uy v. Contreras, G.R. Nos.
111416-17, September 26, 1994).

5. Prior barangay conciliation in criminal cases is

required when the parties reside in the same city or
municipality and the offenses are punishable by imprisonment
not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding P5,000.00 (Art.
408, RA 7160).

6. The felony here of unjust vexation is punishable by

arresto menor or a fine ranging from P1,000 to not more than
P40,000, or both.

7. Thus, prior barangay conciliation is required since

the duration of the above penalty does not exceed one year
imprisonment (Art. 27, RPC).

8. It may be argued that prior barangay conciliation is

not required in this case since the imposable fine exceeds
P5,000.00.

9. Despite the increase of the fine which now exceeds

P5,000 for the subject felony, accused submits that prior
barangay conciliation is still required as the classification of
the same as light felony remains.

10. Unjust vexation prior to the enactment of Rep. Act

No. 10951 is penalized with a penalty of P5 to P200 fine
which makes it as a light felony (Art. 9, RPC; People v. Yu Hai,
G. R. L-9598, August 15, 1956).

11. Under RA 10951 unjust vexation with a penalty of

P1,000 to not more than P40,000 fine is still a light felony
(Sec. 1, RA 10951).

12. Otherwise, felonies with graver penalties would

require prior barangay conciliation while felonies with lighter
penalties would not which absurdity could not have been
contemplated by the enactment of RA 10951.

13. Thus, slight physical injury under par. 1 of Art. 266

of the RPC penalized by arresto mayor or up to six months of
imprisonment will require prior barangay conciliation while
slight physical injury under par. 2 of the same article
penalized only by arresto menor or up to thirty days of
imprisonment will not require prior barangay conciliation
because of its alternative penalty of not exceeding P40,000
fine.

page 2 of 4
 14. Likewise, theft of an item valued at over P500 but
not exceeding P5,000 under par. 5 of Article 309 penalized by
arresto mayor or up to six months of imprisonment will require
prior barangay conciliation while theft of an item valued at not
exceeding P500 under par. 7 of the same article penalized only
by arresto menor or up to thirty days of imprisonment will not
require prior barangay conciliation because of its alternative
penalty of not exceeding P20,000 fine.

15. Reckless imprudence in the commission of an act

which, had it been intentional, would have constituted a less
grave felony, under Article 365 penalized by arresto mayor in
its minimum and medium periods or up to four months and
twenty days of imprisonment will require prior barangay
conciliation while simple imprudence causing some wrong
which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony under the same Article will not require prior barangay
conciliation because of its penalty of not exceeding P40,000
fine.

16. Malicious mischief with graver penalties under

Article 327 in relation to pars. 1 and 2 of Article 329 of the
Revised Penal Code would require prior barangay conciliation
while malicious mischief with a lesser penalty under Article
327 in relation to par. 3 of Article 329 of the Revised Penal
Code because of its penalty of not exceeding P40,000 fine.

17. Further, it is submitted that in case a felony is

punishable with imprisonment or fine, the period of
imprisonment should be controlling in whether or not prior
barangay conciliation is required applying by analogy Sec.
1(B), Rule I of the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First
Level Courts.

18. Private complainant and the accused are both

residents of Mariveles, Bataan. Thus, prior barangay
conciliation is required in this case.

19. Inasmuch as there was no prior barangay

conciliation in this case, the filing of this case is premature
and this case should be dismissed.

20. This pleading was filed by registered mail due to

distance.
page 3 of 4
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Court that this case be quashed for
being premature.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Balanga City for Mariveles, Bataan, August 17, 2022.

VINCENT EMMANUEL T. CRUZ

Counsel for the Accused
Ground Floor, Bataan People’s Center
Capitol Compound, Balanga City
09199963074/[email protected]
PTR No. 3248556; Balanga City; 02/22/22
IBP No. 171170; Bataan; 12/22/21
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0001751; 12/3/19
Roll No. 49679

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

Balanga City

page 4 of 4