Facts It appears that before the expiration of the
lease contract or on the night of September 16, 2002,
armed elements of the FTI took over the FTI
premises in Taguig, Metro Manila and forced two
building custodians to leave following which the gates
were welded, drawing FENICS’ president- herein
petitioner Jorge B. Navarra to file before public
respondent, Office of the Ombudsman, a complaint
for grave coercion, malicious mischief, and/or grave
threats against herein private respondents Samuel
Namanama (Namanama, head of FTI’s legal
department) and Danilo Medina (Medina, FTI’s
Senior Manager) along with Felixberto Lazaro (FTI’s
Legal Assistant).
they only exercised their authority to re-enter the
premises because FENICS refused to pay its rentals
and due to its blatant violations of the terms and
conditions of their Contract of Lease.
Ruling All the elements of Grave Coercion were
extant
1 Private Respondents prevented Petitioner and his
employees from entering their own premises. They
had also compelled Petitioner’s caretakers to leave
the premises against their will.
2 Private Respondents entered the FENICS
compound in the evening, they had a contingent of
about 20-30 armed personnel as against Petitioner’s
two (2) caretakers. They forced their way into the
gates, threatened the caretakers and a driver,
admittedly destroyed one padlock and welded the
gates to prevent entry.
3 In this case, the possessor of the FENICS
compound exhibited its opposition to any
takeover. Certainly, Private Respondents had no
right to enter the compound and evict the occupants
against their will. They had no court order to evict
the existing occupants.[10] (Italics in the original)
The salient facts are not disputed. At about 10:00 in the
evening of December 13, 1971, petitioner, then Mayor of
Daet, Camarines Norte, accompanied by two uniformed
policemen, Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral, and six
laborers, arrived in front of the stalls along Maharlika
highway, the main thoroughfare of the same town. Upon
orders of petitioner, these laborers proceeded to nail
together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls which
protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway.
Among the structures thus barricaded were the
barbershop of Pascual Dayaon, the complaining witness
and the store belonging to one Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos.
These establishments had been recommended for closure
by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, for non-
compliance with certain health and sanitation
requirements.
Petitioner contends that the sealing off of complainant
Dayaon's barbershop was done in abatement of a
public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authority.
Ruling : In the case at bar, petitioner, as mayor of the
town, merely implemented the aforesaid
recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having
then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty,
petitioner incurred no criminal liability.
The third element being absent in the case at bar,
petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
G.R. No. 90423 September 6, 1991
FRANCIS LEE, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PELAGIA PANLINO DE
CHIN, respondents.
Arturo S. Santos for petitioner.
The facts as stated by the respondent Court of Appeals
are undisputed, thus:
At about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of June 20, 1984,
the complainant Maria Pelagia Paulino de Chin, 23
years old, was fetched from her house at 112 BLISS
Site, 8th Avenue, Caloocan City by Atanacio Lumba, a
bank employee, upon the instruction of the petitioner
Branch Manager Francis Lee of Pacific Banking
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as bank). Upon
arriving at the office of Pacific Banking Corporation
located at Caloocan City, petitioner Francis Lee did not
attend to her immediately. After an hour later, the
petitioner confronted the complainant about a forged
Midland National Bank Cashier Check No. 3526794,
which the latter allegedly deposited in the account of
Honorio Carpio. During the said confrontation, the
petitioner Francis Lee was shouting at her with piercing
looks and threatened to file charges against her unless
and until she returned all the money equivalent of the
subject cashier check. Accordingly, the complainant
was caused to sign a prepared withdrawal slip, and
later, an affidavit prepared by the bank's lawyer, where
she was made to admit that she had swindled the bank
and had return the money equivalent of the spurious
check. During her stay at the said bank, the
complainant, who was five (5) months in the family way,
was watched by the bank's employees and security
guards. It was about six o'clock in the afternoon of the
same day when the complainant was able to leave the
bank premises.
The sole issue posed in this petition is whether or not
the acts of petitioner in simply "shouting at the
complainant with piercing looks" and "threats to file
charges against her" are sufficient to convict him of theextortion; duress; putting in fear". To take, or attempt to
crime of grave coercion (p. 6, Rollo).
Against this backdrop, We hold that coercion did not
exist in this case. Consequently, the petitioner should indispensable for there to be intimidation; intense fear
be acquitted.
n the light of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner's
demand that the private respondent return the proceeds
of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal
charges was not improper. There is nothing unlawful on
the threat to sue.
We find that complainant's lengthy stay at the bank was such intent does not exist.14
not due to the petitioner's threat. It was rather due to
her desire to prove her innocence.
Moreover, while complainant claimed that her freedom
of movement was restrained, she, however, was able to
move about freely unguarded from the office of the
petitioner situated at the ground floor to the office of
Cruz at the mezzanine floor where her sister found her
Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously enter, possess and occupy a portion of Lot
No. 3000, Panitan Cadastre, belonging to and owned in
common by Teresita Silva and the latter's brothers and
sisters, after threatening to kill the tenant-encargado if
the latter would resist their taking of the portion of the
land, and thereafter, plowed, cultivated and planted
palay on said portion of land to the exclusion of the
above-named owners thereof who, therefore, were
prevented from appropriating the property's produce or
earning profits therefrom from the time of the said
usurpation by accused up to the present to the damage
and prejudice of the said Teresita Silva and her co-
owners.
But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined
in Black's Law Dictionary 12 as "unlawful coercion;
take, by intimidation means "willfully to take, or attempt
to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm". As shown in
United States vs. Osorio, 13 material violence is not
produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or
hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient. In an
appropriate case, the offender may be liable for either
(a) robbery under paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code if the subject matter is personal
property and there is intent to gain or animus furandi, or
(b) grave coercion under Article 286 of said Code if
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through force or
such display of force that would produce intimidation
and control the will of the offended party is an essential
ingredient. 15

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 15, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, Capiz, respondent.

That sometime in the month of November, 1990, at

Brgy. Cabugao, Municipality of Panitan, Province of
Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this