Timoner vs. People

A public official who abates a public nuisance without judicial proceedings, in good faith and in the performance of a lawful duty, does not commit grave coercion, because the third element of the offense — that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right — is absent.

Petitioner Jose "Pepito" Timoner was the Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte at the time of the events in question. Complainant Pascual Dayaon operated a barbershop in a stall that protruded into the sidewalk of Maharlika highway, the main thoroughfare of the town. The Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, had recommended closure of certain stalls along that highway, including Dayaon's barbershop and the store of Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos, for non-compliance with health and sanitation requirements. Civil Code provisions on nuisance (Articles 694, 695, and 699) and the Revised Penal Code's provision on grave coercion (Article 286) frame the legal dispute.

At about 10:00 in the evening of December 13, 1971, petitioner Jose "Pepito" Timoner, then Mayor of Daet, Camarines Norte, arrived in front of stalls along Maharlika highway, the town's main thoroughfare, accompanied by two uniformed policemen, Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral, and six laborers. Upon petitioner's orders, the laborers nailed together rough lumber slabs to fence off the stalls that protruded into the sidewalk of the highway. Among the structures thus barricaded were the barbershop of Pascual Dayaon, the complaining witness, and the store belonging to Lourdes Pia-Rebustillos. These establishments had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer, Dra. Alegre, for non-compliance with certain health and sanitation requirements.

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, docketed as Civil Case No. 2257, alleging that the stalls constituted public nuisances as well as nuisances per se. The CFI rendered a decision declaring the structures, including Dayaon's barbershop, nuisances per se and ordering the defendants to demolish the stalls and vacate the premises immediately. Dayaon was never able to reopen his barbershop business.

Subsequently, petitioner and the two policemen were charged with grave coercion before the Municipal Court of Daet. That court exonerated the two policemen but convicted petitioner as principal by inducement, sentencing him to six months of arresto mayor in its maximum period, a fine of ₱300.00, and ₱5,000.00 in damages to the offended party. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full.

• Lawful Authority — Abatement of Public Nuisance: Petitioner contended that the sealing off of complainant Dayaon's barbershop was done in abatement of a public nuisance and was therefore carried out under lawful authority, precluding criminal liability for grave coercion.

• Authority of Law in Grave Coercion: Whether petitioner acted with authority of law in ordering the fencing off of complainant's barbershop, such that the third element of grave coercion — that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right — is absent.

• Authority of Law in Grave Coercion: Yes. The petitioner acted under lawful authority, the barbershop having constituted a public nuisance whose abatement without judicial proceedings was expressly authorized by Article 699(3) of the Civil Code; the third element of grave coercion was therefore absent.

• Authority of Law in Grave Coercion: The barbershop occupied a portion of the sidewalk of the poblacion's main thoroughfare and had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer. It constituted a public nuisance under Articles 694 and 695 of the Civil Code, as it obstructed or interfered with the free passage of a public highway and endangered the health and safety of others. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, in Civil Case No. 2257, had separately declared the structures nuisances per se. Even without that judicial pronouncement, however, Article 699(3) of the Civil Code expressly authorizes the abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings. Petitioner, as mayor, merely implemented the Municipal Health Officer's recommendation and acted in good faith in the performance of his duty. Grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code requires three elements: (1) that a person be prevented from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will; (2) that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence; and (3) that the person who restrained another had no right to do so, i.e., the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right. Because the third element was absent — petitioner acted under lawful authority in abating a public nuisance — no criminal liability for grave coercion attached.

• Abatement of public nuisance without judicial proceedings — Under Article 699(3) of the Civil Code, a public nuisance may be abated without judicial proceedings. A public nuisance is one that affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons (Article 695). Where a structure obstructs a public highway and endangers public health, it constitutes a public nuisance under Article 694(1) and (4). A public official acting in good faith to abate such nuisance in the performance of duty incurs no criminal liability, because the act is made under authority of law.

• Elements of grave coercion (Article 286, Revised Penal Code) — The three elements are: (1) that any 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; (2) that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party; and (3) that the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do so, or that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right. The absence of any one element, particularly the third, precludes conviction.

• "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 judicial proceedings." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi: that a public official may lawfully abate a public nuisance without prior judicial authorization, and such action negates criminal liability for grave coercion.

• "Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability." — This statement links the mayor's good-faith performance of official duty to the absence of criminal liability, reinforcing that lawful authority is a complete defense to grave coercion.

• "The third element being absent in the case at bar, petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion." — This is the dispositive legal conclusion applying the three-element test for grave coercion to the facts.

• Baltazar vs. Carolina Midland Ry. Co., 54 S.C. 242 — Cited by the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 2257 for the proposition that a nuisance in a public place is an annoyance to all who come within its sphere; the Supreme Court relied on the CFI's nuisance declaration as corroborative, though not essential, support for its ruling.

• Article 286, Revised Penal Code — Defines grave coercion as committed when a person, without authority of law, by means of violence, prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compels another to do something against his will. The Court applied the three-element test derived from this provision and found the third element absent.
• Article 694, Civil Code of the Philippines — Defines a nuisance as any act, omission, establishment, business, or condition of property which, among other things, injures or endangers health or safety, or obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway. The Court applied paragraphs (1) and (4) to classify the barbershop as a nuisance.
• Article 695, Civil Code of the Philippines — Distinguishes public from private nuisance; a public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. The Court applied this to classify the barbershop as a public nuisance.
• Article 699, Civil Code of the Philippines — Enumerates remedies against a public nuisance: (1) prosecution under the Penal Code or local ordinance; (2) civil action; or (3) abatement without judicial proceedings. The Court relied on paragraph (3) to hold that the mayor's fencing off of the barbershop was a lawful abatement of a public nuisance.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concurred.