Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Facts It appears that before the expiration of the orders of petitioner, these laborers proceeded to nail

lease contract or on the night of September 16, 2002, together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls which
armed elements of the FTI took over the FTI protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway.
premises in Taguig, Metro Manila and forced two Among the structures thus barricaded were the
building custodians to leave following which the gates barbershop of Pascual Dayaon, the complaining witness
were welded, drawing FENICS’ president- herein and the store belonging to one Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos.
petitioner Jorge B. Navarra to file before public These establishments had been recommended for closure
respondent, Office of the Ombudsman, a complaint
by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, for non-
for grave coercion, malicious mischief, and/or grave
compliance with certain health and sanitation
threats against herein private respondents Samuel
Namanama (Namanama, head of FTI’s legal
department) and Danilo Medina (Medina, FTI’s Petitioner contends that the sealing off of complainant
Senior Manager) along with Felixberto Lazaro (FTI’s Dayaon's barbershop was done in abatement of a
Legal Assistant). public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authority.

Ruling : In the case at bar, petitioner, as mayor of the

town, merely implemented the aforesaid
they only exercised their authority to re-enter the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having
premises because FENICS refused to pay its rentals then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty,
and due to its blatant violations of the terms and petitioner incurred no criminal liability.
conditions of their Contract of Lease.
The third element being absent in the case at bar,
Ruling All the elements of Grave Coercion were petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.

1 Private Respondents prevented Petitioner and his

employees from entering their own premises. They Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
had also compelled Petitioner’s caretakers to leave
G.R. No. 90423 September 6, 1991
the premises against their will.
FRANCIS LEE, petitioner,
2 Private Respondents entered the FENICS vs.
compound in the evening, they had a contingent of COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE
about 20-30 armed personnel as against Petitioner’s PHILIPPINES AND PELAGIA PANLINO DE
two (2) caretakers. They forced their way into the CHIN, respondents.
gates, threatened the caretakers and a driver,
admittedly destroyed one padlock and welded the Arturo S. Santos for petitioner.
gates to prevent entry.
The facts as stated by the respondent Court of Appeals
3 In this case, the possessor of the FENICS are undisputed, thus:
compound exhibited its opposition to any
takeover. Certainly, Private Respondents had no
right to enter the compound and evict the occupants At about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of June 20, 1984,
against their will. They had no court order to evict the complainant Maria Pelagia Paulino de Chin, 23
the existing occupants.[10] (Italics in the original) 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
The salient facts are not disputed. At about 10:00 in the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as bank). Upon
evening of December 13, 1971, petitioner, then Mayor of arriving at the office of Pacific Banking Corporation
Daet, Camarines Norte, accompanied by two uniformed located at Caloocan City, petitioner Francis Lee did not
policemen, Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral, and six attend to her immediately. After an hour later, the
laborers, arrived in front of the stalls along Maharlika petitioner confronted the complainant about a forged
highway, the main thoroughfare of the same town. Upon Midland National Bank Cashier Check No. 3526794,
which the latter allegedly deposited in the account of Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Honorio Carpio. During the said confrontation, the conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
petitioner Francis Lee was shouting at her with piercing another, by means of violence against or intimidation of
looks and threatened to file charges against her unless persons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
and until she returned all the money equivalent of the feloniously enter, possess and occupy a portion of Lot
subject cashier check. Accordingly, the complainant No. 3000, Panitan Cadastre, belonging to and owned in
was caused to sign a prepared withdrawal slip, and common by Teresita Silva and the latter's brothers and
later, an affidavit prepared by the bank's lawyer, where sisters, after threatening to kill the tenant-encargado if
she was made to admit that she had swindled the bank the latter would resist their taking of the portion of the
and had return the money equivalent of the spurious land, and thereafter, plowed, cultivated and planted
check. During her stay at the said bank, the palay on said portion of land to the exclusion of the
complainant, who was five (5) months in the family way, above-named owners thereof who, therefore, were
was watched by the bank's employees and security prevented from appropriating the property's produce or
guards. It was about six o'clock in the afternoon of the earning profits therefrom from the time of the said
same day when the complainant was able to leave the usurpation by accused up to the present to the damage
bank premises. and prejudice of the said Teresita Silva and her co-
The sole issue posed in this petition is whether or not
the acts of petitioner in simply "shouting at the But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined
complainant with piercing looks" and "threats to file in Black's Law Dictionary 12 as "unlawful coercion;
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). take, by intimidation means "willfully to take, or attempt
to take, by putting in fear of bodily harm". As shown in
Against this backdrop, We hold that coercion did not United States vs. Osorio, 13 material violence is not
exist in this case. Consequently, the petitioner should indispensable for there to be intimidation; intense fear
be acquitted. produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or
hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient. In an
n the light of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner's
appropriate case, the offender may be liable for either
demand that the private respondent return the proceeds
(a) robbery under paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the
of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal
Revised Penal Code if the subject matter is personal
charges was not improper. There is nothing unlawful on
property and there is intent to gain or animus furandi, or
the threat to sue.
(b) grave coercion under Article 286 of said Code if
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.
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through force or
Moreover, while complainant claimed that her freedom
such display of force that would produce intimidation
of movement was restrained, she, however, was able to
and control the will of the offended party is an essential
move about freely unguarded from the office of the
ingredient. 15
petitioner situated at the ground floor to the office of
Cruz at the mezzanine floor where her sister found her


G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992


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