Law on light coercions Posted on January 2, 2012 by Erineus Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

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.

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.[32] 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 offenders act caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.[33] 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.[34]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20165065.htm

I. Concept: when a person takes the law into his own hands i.e in that he is without authority of law or has no right to act, and by means of violence, threat or intimidation, he either:

A. Compels another to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong, or

B. Prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law. If the act prevented is prohibited by law, the accused is not violating but complementing the law

II. Principles:

A. The violence must be actual and immediate else if the violence is a future harm, it is threat

B. The purpose of the accused need not be attained

C. Examples: Applying force, violence, or intimidation in order to:

1. Compel a suspect to make a confession

2. Compel the driver to change course

3. Stop a person from making a construction

4. Prohibit a student from leaving the classroom

5. Force a tenant into leaving the leased premises coupled with padlocking the door

6. Compel a person to board a vehicle even if after some distance she was able to break free and ran away

7. Break a girls spirit so that she will agree to marry the accused, even if she was taken from her house and brought elsewhere

8. Take back or recover ones own property from another even if said property has been previously unlawfully taken away (Note that this is not an impossible crime of robbery)

D. The penalty is higher if the coercion relates to:

1. the exercise of suffrage, as preventing a voter form voting

2. exercise of religion, such as pointing a gun at another to prevent him from making the sign of the Cross

III. Distinguished from other crimes:

A. From robbery: where property is taken. It is coercion if the taking is not with intent to gain but to prevent the doing of an act Example: The accused took away the bolo of another to prevent the latter from continuing to cut down the pine trees.

B. From threats: if the harm to be done is direct and immediate, it is coercion but if the harm is to be inflicted later, it is threats.

1. I will kick you if you will not leave this room. This is coercion as the kicking is to be done right then and there. It is actual and imminent.

2. If you will not leave this room, I will kick you. This is threat as the kicking will be later.

C. From Illegal Detention: In coercion the intention is not to deprive a person of his liberty or to restrain his liberty. Example: A guest who refuses to vacate his room for violations of hotel rules even after he was ordered to leave, was forcibly taken out from the room and guarded in the Office of the Hotel Security Force. He was released only after all his things were taken out and the room was locked. The crime is coercion not detention.

IV. Coercion is either :

A. Grave Coercion if there is use of force, violence, or intimidation as punished by Art. 286

B. Light Coercion under Art. 287 which may also be either:

1. Coercion by a creditor- the crime committed by a creditor who, with violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of his debt

a). If the purpose is not to apply as payment for the debt the crime is robbery

b). If there was no violence employed, but the property was taken without the knowledge of the debtor, the crime should be theft

c). If the taking was by deceit or misrepresentation, as when the creditor says he will just borrow the property but applied it to the debt, the crime is unjust vexation.

d). If the creditor pretends there is a debt to be paid which was why the thing was given, when truth there is no debt, the crimes is estafa by means of deceit

2. Unjust Vexation- any conduct which annoys, vexes, disturbs or irritates another, provided there was no force, threat, violence or intimidation.

a). This is always in the consummated stage

b). This is a crime of last resort

c). The same act may constitute either slight physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, slander by deed, or unjust vexation, depending upon the intention of the accused. Example: holding the testicles of a man or embracing a woman may give rise to several crimes.

d). For the crime of unjust vexation to exist, it is not necessary that the offended party be present when the crime was committed by the accused- it is enough that the offended party was embarrassed, annoyed, irritated, or disturbed when he/she learned of the overt acts of the accused ( Maderazo vs. PP 503 SCRA 234)

3. Other similar coercions. Crime by any person who shall force or compel his laborer or employee to: ( a) purchase merchandise or commodity of any kind sold by said employer or (b) accept tokens or objects, other than the legal tender, as payment of wages, unless expressly requested by the employee. Example: compelling wages in the form of casino chips, sweepstake tickets, lotto tickets, or goods or merchandise.

GRAVE THREATS Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter, his family of any wrong amounting to a crime. (Art. 282)

Threat is a declaration of an intention or determination to injure another by the commission upon his person, honor or property or upon that of his family of some wrong which may or may not amount to a crime. When the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime, the case fall under Article 282; if it does not amount to a crime, the case falls under Article 283 and is punished as light threats.

The threat must refer to a future wrong and is committed by acts or words of such efficacy to inspire terror or fear upon another. It is not essential that the person threatened be present. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Oct. 29, 1885) If the threats be made in writing, it may consists in symbols as an illustration of a skull with crossed bones.

If the main objective was to threaten to kill the offended party, the accompanying physical assault upon the person of the offended party, is a mere incident and forms a part of the grave threats. (People v. Deveraturada, 14 CA Reports 774)

If physical violence or moral pressure is exerted upon a person in a manner that is determined and constant until the unlawful purpose is realized, coercion is committed and not threats, for the latter crime refers to an intimidation that is either conditional or future. Thus, if a person is compelled to sign a document without intent to gain at the point of a gun, the crime committed is coercion and not threats.

As distinguished from robbery, in both cases, there is intimidation against person. The purpose which is to obtain money is likewise identical. The differences are:

Threats Robbery 1. Intimidation is conditional or future. 1. Intimidation is actual and immediate. 2. Intimidation is thru an intermediary. 2. Intimidation is personal. 3. Threats may refer to the person, honor or property. 3. Refers to personal property.

LIGHT THREATS A threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner of demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful. (Art. 283)

Blackmail is punished under this article if money is demanded under threats of exposure. Also, a threat to file disbarnment proceeding by a client to his lawyer unless given P 1,000 by the latter is light threats. (Batolawon v. Leorente, 8 SCRA 787)

OTHER LIGHT THREATS Acts Punished: 1. Threatening another with a weapon or drawing such weapons during a quarrel, except in lawful selfdefense. 2. Orally threatening another in the heat of anger with some harm constituting a crime and who by subsequent acts shows that he did not persist in the idea involved in the threat, provided the circumstances do not fall within the provision of Article 282.

3. Orally threatening another with any harm not constituting a felony. (Art. 285)

GRAVE COERCION Any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. (Art. 286)

Violence is not exclusively physical force but also includes moral pressure or intimidation. (Cuello Calon, II, p. 752) The violence, however, must be immediate, actual or imminent. (People v. Romero, 44 OG 4424) The essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty. (VI, Viada, 55th Ed., p. 80) The purpose of the law is to enforce the rule of law. (People v. Mangosing, 1104, April 29, 1948)

If the act of carrying away the woman is not with lewd designs, it is coercion; otherwise, it is forcible abduction. Where the accused employed intimidation and violence upon the offended party to take her for a ride without molesting her, coercion is committed. (People v. Cruz, 50 OG 3720)

Ejecting forcibly a person from his possession of a parcel of land, even though the offender be the owner, is grave coercion, for no person may take the law in his own hands. (People v. Nebreja, 76 Phil. 119) If the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit the crime and tortured to make him confess to such crime, but later released because the agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the violence employed to compel such confession without the offended party being confined in jail. (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil. 143)

The elements of grave coercion are: 1. That a person be prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong. 2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control of the will of the offended party. 3. That the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint was not made under authority of law or the exercise of a lawful right. (Timoner v. People, 125 SCRA 830)

In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. (Q3, 1999 Bar)

LIGHT COERCION 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. Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine, or both. (Art. 287)

Unjust vexation is any act committed without violence but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person. It should include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. (People v. Cayason, 04787, April 10, 1965) Kissing a former fiancee in a fit of anger or where security guard was rude in carrying out the inspection of packages leaving the compound by refusing to return the handbag of complainant after it had already been inspected, and by shouting at her (People v. Culobong, 23089, Feb. 24, 1960), have been held to constitute unjust vexation.

The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely unjust vexation. (People v. Ignacio, 5119, Sept. 30, 1950) Otherwise, it is acts of lasciviousness. (Q1, 1994 Bar) In P.V. Maravilla, 47646, Sept. 19, 1988, and accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of grabbing the left breast of the complainant against her will. In another case, Kwan v. CA, 113006, Nov. 23, 2000,

the act of abruptly cutting off the electric, water pipe and telephone lines of a business establishment causing interruptions during peak hours was held as unjust vexation.