2 Ways of Committing Grave Coercion

1. By preventing another, by means of violence, threats or

intimidation, from doing something NOT prohibited by law.
2. By compelling another, by means of violence, threats or
intimidation, to do something against his will, whether it be RIGHT or
WRONG.

Elements of Grave Coercion:

1. That a person PREVENTED another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or that he COMPELLED him to do something
against his will, be it right or wrong.
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats
or intimidation; and
3. That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another had
not the authority of law or the right to do so, or, in other words,
that the restraint shall be made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.

People vs. Madrid (C.A., 53 O.G. 711)

The coercing person must have exerted violence on his victim at the
very moment that the latter is doing or is about to do something he wants to
do.xxx but the complainant went ahead and did it, xxx the crime is not grave
coercion.

People vs. Fernando (43 O.G. 1717)

Coercion is committed by the unauthorized compelling of another
person against his will to do something, whether just or unjust; its essence
being an attack on the individual liberty.

U.S. vs. Medina

When the complainant is in the actual possession of a thing, even if he
has no right to that possession, compelling him by means of violence to give
up the possession, even by the owner himself, is grave coercion.
Xxx
It is a maxim of the law that no man is authorized to take the law into
his hands and enforce his rights with threats or violence except in certain
well-defined cases where one acts in the necessary defense of one’s life,
liberty or property.

People vs. Madamba

The mere fact that the defendant with eight other individuals appeared
all armed and told the complainant to desist from constructing the house on a
piece of land, and that the said complainant, evidently afraid of the presence
of armed men, desisted, DOES NOT constitute coercion, because those facts
do not show violence, and since defendant did not in any way intimidate the
complainant, there was no display of material force.

People vs. Irlanda

 But when the defendants presented themselves armed and surrounded
the complainant in a notoriously THREATENING ATTITUDE and thereby
created such a situation that they necessarily intimidated the complainant
and compelled him to leave, so that they could freely take the palay already
harvested, the defendants are guilty of grave coercion

A person who takes the law into his hands with violence, is guilty of grave
coercion
Thus, forcibly ejecting an occupant from the land bought by the
offender, without authority from the court, is coercion. (Pp vs. Nebreja)
Also, forcibly invading the land claiming to be the owner thereof and
taking the palay and camote harvested therefrom byt the occupant, is
coercion.

QUALIFIED THEFT

People vs. Esmillo

The stealing of coconuts when they are still in the tree or deposited on
the ground within the plantation is qualified theft. When the coconuts are
stolen in any other place, it is simple theft.

People vs. Isnain

In the matter of theft of coconuts, the purpose of the heavier penalty is
to encourage and protect the development of the coconut industry as one of
the sources of our national economy. Unlike rice and sugar cane farms
where the range of vision is unobstructed, coconut groves cannot be
efficiently watched because of the nature of the growth of coconut trees; and
without a special measure to protect this kind of property, it will be, as it has
been in the past, the favorite resort of thieves. There is therefore, some
reason for the special treatment accorded the industry.