4/13/2017 G.R.No.

L62050

TodayisThursday,April13,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.L62050November25,1983

JOSE"PEPITO"TIMONER,petitioner,
vs.
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESANDTHEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,IVDIVISION,respondents.

MarcianoC.Dating,Jr.andJose&Fuentebellaforpetitioner.

TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.

ESCOLIN,J.: + . w p h !1

PetitionforreviewoftheaffirmanceintotobytheCourtofAppeals,nowtheIntermediateAppellateCourt,ofthe
judgmentofconvictionhandeddownbythethenMunicipalCourtofDaet,CamarinesNorte,inCriminalCaseNo.
4281,entitledPeopleofthePhilippinesvs.JoseTimoner,findingpetitionerguiltyofthecrimeofgravecoercion,
asfollows: t . h q w

WHEREFORE this Court finds the accused JOSE 'PEPITO' TIMONER guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion as penalized under Art. 286 in the Revised Penal Code, and
hereby sentences the said accused pursuant to the provision of Rule 64, Par. 3, to suffer SIX
MONTHSOFIMPRISONMENTOFARRESTOMAYORINITSMAXIMUMPERIOD,topayafineof
P300.00andtopaytheoffendedpartyintheamountofP5,000.00asdamages,withoutsubsidiary
liability in case of insolvency. The other accused SAMUEL MORENA and ERNESTO QUIBRAL are
herebyorderedACQUITTED.

Thesalientfactsarenotdisputed.Atabout10:00intheeveningofDecember13,1971,petitioner,thenMayorof
Daet,CamarinesNorte,accompaniedbytwouniformedpolicemen,SamuelMorenaandErnestoQuibral,andsix
laborers, arrived in front of the stalls along Maharlika highway, the main thoroughfare of the same town. Upon
orders of petitioner, these laborers proceeded to nail together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls which
protrudedintothesidewalkoftheMaharlikahighway.Amongthestructuresthusbarricadedwerethebarbershop
of Pascual Dayaon, the complaining witness and the store belonging to one Lourdes PiaRebustillos. These
establishments had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, for non
compliancewithcertainhealthandsanitationrequirements.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against Lourdes Pia
Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their stalls. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 2257,
alleged that these stalls constituted public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. Dayaon was never able to
reopenhisbarbershopbusiness.

Subsequently, petitioner and the two policemen, Morena and Quibral, were charged with the offense of grave
coercionbeforetheMunicipalCourtofDaet.Asalreadynoted,thesaidcourtexoneratedthetwopolicemen,but
convictedpetitionerofthecrimechargedasprincipalbyinducement.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedinfullthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Hence,thepresentrecourse.

PetitionercontendsthatthesealingoffofcomplainantDayaon'sbarbershopwasdoneinabatementofapublic
nuisanceand,therefore,underlawfulauthority.

We find merit in this contention. Unquestionably, the barbershop in question did constitute a public nuisance as
definedunderArticleNos.694and695oftheCivilCode,towit: t . h q w

ART. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or
anythingelsewhich:

(1)Injuresorendangersthehealthorsafetyofothersor

(2)Annoysoroffendsthesensesor

(3)Shocks,defiesordisregardsdecencyormoralityor
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/nov1983/gr_l_62050_1983.html 1/3
4/13/2017 G.R.No.L62050
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of
wateror

(5)Hindersorimpairstheuseofproperty.

ART. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or
neighborhoodoranyconsiderablenumberofpersons,althoughtheextentoftheannoyance,danger
or damage upon individuals may be unequal A private nuisance is one that is not included in the
foregoingdefinition.

The barbershop occupied a portion of the sidewalk of the poblacion's main thoroughfare and had been
recommendedforclosurebytheMunicipalHealthOfficer.Infact,theCourtofFirstInstanceofCamarinesNorte,
initsdecisioninCivilCaseNo.2257,declaredsaidbarbershopasanuisanceperse.Thus: t . h q w

Underthefactsofthecase,aswellasthelawinpoint,thereisnosemblanceofanylegalityorright
that exists in favor of the defendants to build a stall and conduct their business in a sidewalk,
especiallyinahighwaywhereitdoesnotonlyconstituteamenacetothehealthofthegeneralpublic
passing through the street and also of the unsanitary condition that is bred therein as well as the
unsightly and ugly structures in the said place. Moreover, even if it is claimed and pretended that
therewasalicense,permitortolerationofthedefendants'makeshiftstoreandlivingquartersfora
numberofyearsdoesnotlendlegalitytoanactwhichisanuisanceperse. Such nuisance affects
thecommunityorneighborhoodoranyconsiderablenumberofpersonsandthegeneralpublicwhich
posed a danger to the people in general passing and using that place, for in addition, this is an
annoyance to the public by the invasion of its rights the fact that it is in a public place and
annoyingtoallwhocomewithinitssphere[Baltazarvs.CarolinaMidland,Ry,Co.,54S.C.242,32
SB 258, cited in 11 Tolentino's Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 375 Kapisanan Lingkod ng Bayan,
Inc.vs.Lacson,CAG.R.No.27260R,March25,196461O.G.2487].

xxxxxxxxx

... IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares that the structures subject of this
complaint as well as those occupied by the impleaded defendants are nuisances per se and
thereforeordersthedefendantstodemolishthestallandvacatethepremisesimmediately...

But even without this judicial pronouncement, petitioner could not have been faulted for having fenced off said
barbershop. Paragraph 3, Article 699 of the Civil Code authorizes the abatement of a public nuisance without
judicialproceedings. t . h q w

ART.699.Theremediesagainstapublicnuisanceare:

[l]AprosecutionunderthePenalCodeoranylocalordinanceor

[2]Acivilactionor

[3]Abatement,withoutjudicialproceedings.

In the case at bar, petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaid recommendation of the
Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no
criminalliability.

Grave coercion is committed when "a person who, without authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent
anotherfromdoingsomethingnotprohibitedbylaworcompeltodosomethingagainsthiswill,eitheritberightor
wrong."1Thethreeelementsofgravecoercionare:[1]thatanypersonbepreventedbyanotherfromdoingsomethingnot
prohibitedbylaw,orcompelledtodosomethingagainsthiswill,beitrightorwrong[2]thatthepreventionorcompulsionbe
effected by violence, either by material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the
offendedparty,and[3]thatthepersonwhorestrainedthewillandlibertyofanotherhadnorighttodoso,or,inotherwords,
thattherestraintwasnotmadeunderauthorityoflaworintheexerciseofalawfulright.2

Thethirdelementbeingabsentinthecaseatbar,petitionercannotbeheldguiltyofgravecoercion.

WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.No.19534CR,isherebysetasideandpetitioner
isacquittedofthecrimecharged.Costsdeoficio.

SOORDERED. 1 w p h 1 . t

Makasiar(Chairman),Aquino,Concepcion,Jr.,Guerrero,AbadSantosandDeCastro,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes t . h q w

1Article286,RevisedPenalCode.

2JusticeRamonC.Aquino,TheRevisedPenalCode,Book11,1976,p.1392.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/nov1983/gr_l_62050_1983.html 2/3
4/13/2017 G.R.No.L62050

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/nov1983/gr_l_62050_1983.html 3/3