GRAVE COERCION The three elements of grave coercion are: [1] that any 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, either by material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party, and [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 in the exercise of a lawful right. ---------------------In the crime of grave coercion, violence through material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party is an essential ingredient. For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be present: 1. that a person is 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 is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3. that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.[43]

Admittedly, respondents padlocked the Unit and cut off the electricity, water and telephone facilities. Petitioners were thus prevented from occupying the Unit and using it for the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to be used as a law office. At the time of the padlocking and cutting off of facilities, there was already a case for the determination of the rights and obligations of both Alejandro, as lessee and OPI as lessor, pending before the MeTC. There was in fact an order for the respondents to remove the padlock. Thus, in performing the acts complained of, Amor and Aguilar had no right to do so. The problem, however, lies on the second element. A perusal of petitioners’ Joint Affidavit-Complaint shows that petitioners merely alleged the fact of padlocking and cutting off of facilities to prevent the petitioners from entering the Unit. For petitioners, the commission of these acts is sufficient to indict respondents of grave coercion. It was never alleged that the acts were effected by violence, threat or intimidation. Petitioners belatedly alleged that they were intimidated by the presence of security guards during the questioned incident. We find that the mere presence of the security guards is insufficient to cause intimidation to the petitioners. - JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO vs. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS - G.R. No. 179243, September 7, 2011

The land cultivated was previously tenanted by the father of Cabalag. the town mayor had the power to order the clearance of market premises and the removal of the complainants' stall because the municipality had enacted municipal ordinances pursuant to which the market stall was a nuisance per se.00 each. appellants' acquittal was based on reasonable doubt whether the crime of coercion was committed. L-39999 May 31.000. No. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the acquittal of the defendants-appellants as to criminal liability results in the extinction of their civil liability.. -G. not on facts that no unlawful act was committed. The Court of Appeals denied the motion holding that: xxx xxx xxx . and. On a relevant date.00 moral damages. ISMAEL GONZALGO and JOSE FARLEY BEDENIA.000. but they are ordered to pay jointly and severally to complainants the amount of P9. 1984 ROY PADILLA.000. the imposition of actual damages is correct. and the costs of the suit.----------------------------------The petitioners appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. as actual damages. They also challenged the order to pay fines of P500. The petitioners stated that the lower court erred in finding that the demolition of the complainants' stall was a violation of the very directive of the petitioner Mayor which gave the stall owners seventy two (72) hours to vacate the market premises. which was owned by Roxas y Cia. Meanwhile. COURT OF APPEALS. Caisip is the overseer of the land. They contended that the trial court's finding of grave coercion was not supported by the evidence. Roxas filed a case for forcible entry against Guevarra. --------------------------CAISIP V.600. P30. she was forcibly dragged by policemen .. petitioners. She was being asked to leave by Caisip but she refused. Guevarra sought recognition as a lawful tenant from the CAR but such was dismissed as it was held that he wasn’t a tenant thereof. Thereafter. Thereafter. we hereby modify the judgment appealed from in the sense that the appellants are acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. she was charged with grave coercion. According to the petitioners. destructing (sic) complainants' properties is unlawful. as their taking the law into their hands.00 exemplary damages. FILOMENO GALDONES. vs.R. P10. there was an altercation between Cabalag and Caisip over the cutting of sugar cane. The dispositive portion of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals states: WHEREFORE. on which he won and the court ordered Guevarra to vacate the lot.00 actual and compensatory damages.00. The petitioners questioned the imposition of prison terms of five months and one day and of accessory penalties provided by law. as evidence on record established that complainants suffered actual damages. P10. PEOPLE 36 SCRA 17 Cabalag and her husband cultivated a parcel of land in Hacienda Palico. When she was again seen in the Hacienda and weeding.

are greater contributors to the biological and psychological dimensions of PTSD than the event itself. She had merely remained in possession thereof. accidents. will ultimately lead to PTSD symptoms in adulthood. -------------------------------Psychological trauma PTSD is believed to be caused by experiencing any of a wide range of events[9] which produces intense negative feelings of "fear.[18] It has been shown that the intrusive memories. HELD: Article 429 is inapplicable to the case at bar.[11] getting a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness[1] Children or adults may develop PTSD symptoms by experiencing bullying or mobbing. depending on their vulnerability and the severity of the trauma.[23] Clinical findings indicate that a failure to provide adequate treatment to children after they suffer a traumatic experience. People with PTSD have intrusive re-experiences of traumatic events which lack awareness of context and time.[21] [22] Parents with violence-related PTSD may.[15][16][17] However. . illnesses. Appellants didn’t repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the property. The complainant didn’t usurp or invade said lot. despite a traumatized parent's best efforts.and Caisip. for example. medical complications. and the memories themselves. rather than thoughts. nightmares. drug addiction.[19] These intrusive memories are mainly characterized by sensory episodes. They expelled the complainant from a property on which she and her husband were in possession even before the action for forcible entry was filed against them. even though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor. This prompted for the filing a case for grave coercion. helplessness or horror"[10] in the observer or participant.[1] • • • • experiencing or witnessing physical assault.[20] Multiple studies show that parental PTSD and other posttraumatic disturbances in parental psychological functioning can. [14] Preliminary research suggests that child abuse may interact with mutations in a stress-related gene to increase the risk of PTSD in adults.[1]Sources of such feelings may include (but are not limited to): experiencing or witnessing childhood or adult physical. These episodes aggravate and maintain PTSD symptoms since the individual reexperiences trauma as if it was happening in the present moment. [12][13] Approximately 25% of children exposed to family violence can experience PTSD. adult experiences of sexual assault. or sexual abuse. emotional. such as flashbacks. inadvertently expose their children to developmentally inappropriate violent media due to their need to manage their own emotional dysregulation. being exposed to a traumatic experience doesn't automatically indicate they will develop PTSD. interfere with their response to their child as well as their child's response to trauma.[11] employment in occupations exposed to war (such as soldiers) or disaster (such as emergency service workers).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful