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.