Section

Three.
Threats
and
Art. 286 Art. 289
Coercion

Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of prision

correccional and a fine not exceeding six thousand
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without
any authority of law, shall, by means of violence,
threats, or intimidation, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed in violation of the exercise
of the right of suffrage, or for the purpose of compelling
another to perform any religious act or to prevent him
from exercising such right or from so doing such act,
the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed. (As
amended by RA No.7890, approved February 20,
1995)

ELEMENTS:
a) 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;
b) That the prevention or compulsion be effected by
violence, either by material force or such a display of
force as would produce intimidation and control the
will of the offended party; and
c) That the person who restrained the will and liberty of
another had no right to do so, or in other words, that
the restraint shall not be made under authority of law
or in the exercise of any lawful right.

POINTS TO
REMEMBER
Violence is not exclusively physical force but

also
includes
moral
pressure
or
intimidation.
It is sufficient if the attitude of the offender is
notoriously menacing as to amount to a
grave intimidation or create such a situation
that necessarily would intimidate the victim
(People vs Lacdan).
The violence, however, must be immediate,
actual or imminent (People vs Romero).

DISTINGUISHED
F RCOERCION
O M R O B BROBBERY
E RY
GRAVE
The proper conviction if the
purpose of the act, without
authority of law, a person,
believing himself to be the
creditor, compels another to do
something against his will and
to seize the property.

The proper conviction if the

purpose of the act is with intent
to gain to take the property of
another
by
force
or
intimidation.

The motives of the accused are the prime criterion.

So coercion, not robbery, is committed by one, who, by
use of intimidation secures what he belives to be his
property.

Distinguished from forcible

abduction
If the act of carrying away the woman is not with
lewd designs, it is coercion, otherwise it is
forcible abduction.
So when the accused seized the complaining
woman by the wrist and dragged her from the
doorway of her house into the street some 40 to
50 feet away, with the assistance of a third person,
and placed her in a public carromata, coercion
is committed. (US vs Alexander, 8 Phil 29) .

Distinguished from illegal detention

If there is no deprivation of liberty, there is
no illegal detention.
So where the offended party employed as a
servant had the freedom of the house and
left it at times to visit her mother, but was
only compelled against her will by the
defendant to leave her house and go with
them to the defendants house, coercion is
committed (US vs Quevengco, 2 Phil 412).

Distinguished from
maltreatment of prisoners
If the person maltreated to secure
a confession is not a prisoner but
only a suspect, the crime
committed is grave coercion.
If the maltreatment is ordered by
a superior officer, the crime is
coercion by induction. (People vs
Pabalan, 37 Phil. 352)

Article 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 ofarresto mayorin 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 byarresto menoror a fine ranging from
5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

LIGHT COERCIONS
The first paragraph deals with light coercions
wherein violence is employed by the offender who
is a creditor in seizing anything belonging to his
debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt.
In the other light coercions or unjust vexation
embraced in the second paragraph, violence is
absent.

P e o p l e v s Tu p u l a r, 7
Phil. 8
LIGHT COERCION under the first
paragraph is committed when the
defendant, as agent of the creditor forcibly
took possession of the debtors goods
despite his objection, in order to pay the
debt of his principal therewith and which
act the debtor did not resist because he
knew that defendant had a revolver.

People vs Reyes,
52 O.G. 2532

LIGHT COERCION under the second

paragraph is committed if
the violence is not present, as when
the accused through deceit and
misrepresentation seized a passenger
jeep belonging to the debtor without
the knowledge or consent of the latter
for the purpose of applying it to
the payment of his debt.

U N J U S T V E X AT I O N
This Article also speaks of unjust vexation, which
is any act committed without violence but which
unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person.
As a punishable act, unjust vexation should
include any conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm
would, however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an
innocent person (People vs Cayason).
It is distinguished from grave coercion under the
first paragraph by the absence of violence (People
vs Sebastian).

Cases that have been

held to constitute Unjust
Vexation
Constructing a fence
in front of a chapel where a

pabasa was being held (People vs Reyes).

Kissing a former fiance in a fit of anger (People
vs Cantong); or
Where a security guard was rude in carrying out
the order of his employer regarding the inspection
of packages of his employees leaving the
compound by refusing to return the handbag of
complainant after it had already been inspected,
and shouting at her (People vs Culobong).

People vs
Espina
The main purpose of
the statute 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 laws, not of

 Article 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory

purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by
means of tokens.) - The penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any
association or corporation who shall force or compel,
directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any
laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or
corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person
who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee
employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other
than the legal tender currency of the Philippine Islands,
unless expressly requested by the laborer or employee.

ACTS PUNISHED:
a) Forcing or compelling by any person, agent,
or officer or any association or corporation,
directly or indirectly, any employee employed
by him to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind; and
b) Paying of wages by means of tokens or objects
other than legal currency unless expressly
requested by the employee or laborer.
**These acts are also punished in the Minimum
Wage Law.

Article 289. Formation, maintenance and

prohibition of combination of capital or labor
through violence or threats. - The penalty
of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for
the purpose of organizing, maintaining or
preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike of
laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ
violence or threats in such a degree as to compel
or force the laborers or employers in the free and
legal exercise of their industry or work, if the act
shall not constitute a more serious offense in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.

ACTS PUNISHED
a)organizing, maintaining
or preventing coalitions
of capital or labor,
strike, or lockout
through violence or
threats

 The act must not constitute a more

serious offense punished by the Code.
Making
of
communication
and
correspondence shall be inviolable
except from lawful order of the court, or
when public safety and other reprieve
otherwise.
This act is punished in Com. Act No. 213.