13- PEOPLE. v. PLETCHA.

docx

13d- PEOPLE. v. PLETCHA

People of the Philippines v. Pletcha

G.R. No. 19029-CR, June 27, 1977, 22 CA Rep. 807
Sison, J.

FACTS: Tito Pletcha, Jr., farmer, invoking ‘self-help’ in defense of the land
he inherited from his father 19 years ago against the workers of Radeco
Corporation, who without court order, were constructing a fence in a
hacienda allegedly leased by the corporation from a certain Lopinco.

Claiming actual possession and ownership and believing that the land
sought to be fenced was an integral part of the land he inherited, Pletcha
asked the group to desist from fenicing pending a resurvey he proposed,
but he was totally ignored, thus he fought off and prevented the workers.
As a result of such resistance he was prosecuted and convicted of grave
coercion by the Municipal Trial Court. Pletcha appealed the decision of the
MTC with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether the appellant’s action is a legitimate exercise of a private

citizen’s ‘self-help.

HELD: Yes. In the instant case,the usurper’s possession has not yet become
complete and the complainants were in the act of building a fence. Such an
act constitutes force in contemplation of the law. This act of trespass
justified the appellant to drive them away, even by means of bolo because
they refused to listen to his appeal which is reasonable. The appellant need
not rush to the court to seek redress before reasonably resisting the
invasion of his property. The situation required immediate action and Art.
429 gave him the self executory mechanics of self-defense and self-
reliance. The provision in Art 429 of the New Civil Code confirms the right
of the appellant, an owner and lawful possessor, to use reasonable force to
repel an invasion or usurpation, actual, threatened or physical of his
property. The principle of self-defense and the protective measures related
thereto, covers not only his life, but also his liberty and property.

“The principle of self-help authorizes the lawful possessor to use force, not
13- PEOPLE. v. PLETCHA.docx

only to prevent a threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation thereof; it is a

sort of self-defense. It is lawful to repel force by force. He who merely uses
force to defend his possession does not possess by force. The use of such
necessary force to protect propriety or possessory rights constitutes a
justifying circumstance under the Penal Code.”