GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION JURIS

1.
GRAVE THREATS
Caluag vs. People G.R. No. 171511 March 4, 2009
Under the Revised Penal Code, there are three kinds of threats: grave threats
(Article 282), light threats (Article 283) and other light threats (Article 285). These
provisions state:
Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction
upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he
threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or
imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have
attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty
lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall
not have been made subject to a condition.
Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made
in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished
by arresto mayor.
Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding
article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless
it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm
not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the
idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not
bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a
felony.
In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may
not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened does not
amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. In other light threats, the
wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition.
Rosauro Reyes vs. People G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529
After a careful consideration of the original information, we find that all the
elements of the crime of grave threats as defined in Article 282 1 of the Revised Penal
Code and penalized by its paragraph 2 were alleged therein namely: (1) that the
offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong; (2)
that such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the threat was not subject to a
condition. Hence, petitioner could have been convicted thereunder.
2. GRAVE COERCION
Barbasa vs. Hon. Tuquero (G.R. No. 1639898, December 23, 2008)
The crime of grave coercion has three elements: (a) that a person is prevented
by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something
against his or her will, be it right or wrong; (b) that the prevention or compulsion is
effected by violence, either by material force or such a display of it as would produce
intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party; and (c) that
the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so; in other
words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any
lawful right.
The records show that there was no violence, force or the display of it as would
produce intimidation upon petitioner's employees when the cutting off of petitioner's
electricity was effected. On the contrary, it was done peacefully and after written notice
to petitioner was sent. We do not subscribe to petitioner's claim that the presence of
armed guards were calculated to intimidate him or his employees. Rather, we are more
inclined to believe that the guards were there to prevent any untoward or violent event
from occurring in the exercise of TPI's rights under the lease agreements. If the
respondents desired a violent result, they would have gone there unannounced or cut
petitioner's electricity through less desirable and conspicuous means.
It is likewise clear from the penalty clause in the Contracts of Lease entered into by the
parties that TPI is given the option to cut off power and other utility services in
petitioner's stalls in case petitioner fails to pay at any time the installments on the
priority premium, lease rentals or CUSA and utility charges corresponding to a total of
three months until full payment of said charges, expenses, penalty and interest is
made.18 The stipulation under said clause is clear; there is no ambiguity in what is stated.
There could be no grave coercion in the private respondents' act of exercising in behalf
of TPI a right afforded to TPI under the solemn and unequivocal covenants of a contract
to which petitioner had agreed and which he did execute and sign.
As held by this Court in a previous case which we find instructive:

Contracts constitute the law between the parties. They must be read together and
interpreted in a manner that reconciles and gives life to all of them. The intent of the
parties, as shown by the clear language used, prevails over post facto explanations that
find no support from the words employed by the parties or from their contemporary
and subsequent acts showing their understanding of such contracts.
Article 286. Grave Coercion. – The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding Six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without 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 right of suffrage, or for the
purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act, to prevent him from
exercising such right or from so doing such act, the penalty next higher in degree shall be
imposed.”

GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION JURIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION JURIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRAVE THREATS and GRAVE COERCION JURIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

Rosauro Reyes vs. People G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529

As held by this Court in a previous case which we find instructive:

You might also like