REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

11th Judicial Region
BRANCH 3, Davao City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE NO. 148,929-C-2014

Plaintiff,

- versus – FOR: GRAVE COERCION

FORTUNATA BUCALA, ET. AL.,

Accused.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
The ACCUSED, by counsel, with leave of court previously obtained,
respectfully submits this Demurrer to the Prosecution's Evidence on
the ground of failure from the prosecution to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

1. The accused is charged with grave coercion. The elements of grave

coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:
1) that a person is 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 is effected by
violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who
restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in
other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or
in the exercise of any lawful right.

1.1 In the crime of grave coercion, violence through force or such

display of force that would produce intimidation and control the will
of the offended party is an essential ingredient [PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR., Presiding
Judge, Branch 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Capiz, Respondent, G.R. No.
102070. July 23, 1992.]

The prosecution has failed to show that the accused committed violence
through force or such display of force that would produce intimidation
and control the will of the Dallas workers to prevent what they were
doing.

Nowhere from the evidence presented for by the prosecution in Exhibits

“P”, “P-1”, “P-2”, “P-3”, “P-4”, “P-5”, “P-6”, “P-7”, “P-8”, “P-9”,
“P-10”. “P-11”, “P-12”, “P-13, “P-14”, “P-15, “P-16”, “P-17” and “P-
18” have shown threatening and violent acts displayed by the accused
that would produce the necessary force and intimidation against the
Dallas workers. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion
extant in the said exhibits other than the bare allegation of the
prosecution's witnesses.

1.2 The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are plagued
with inconsistencies. In their judicial affidavits, they said that all
the accused were in possession of bolos, hammers and pieces of wood
for the purpose of using those to hit the Dallas workers if they
proceed with their operations. However, during the cross examination
of their witness Rodrigo G. Arnaiz, he admitted that only one brought
a bolo as shown in Exhibit “P-3”. In fact, when the same witness was
asked as to the possession of all the accused of the bolo, wooden
stick and hammer, he could only point Exhibit P-3 where one of the
 2

accused brought a bolo and was merely holding it in a lowered

position.

2. The same witness further admitted that the Dallas workers

comprising of masons, backhoe operators and laborers were more or less
30 in number and that they were in possession of their own tools.
Clearly, the first element of grave coercion is not present as the
accused could not have prevented the 30 workers from doing their works
with just the 5 of them with only one of them bringing bolo. Moreover,
they could not have intimidated them to stop what they were doing.

In the case of JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, FIRDAUSI I.Y. ABBAS,

CARMINA A. ABBAS and MA. ELENA GO FRANCISCO, Petitioners, vs. ATTY.
JOSE A. BERNAS, ATTY. MARIE LOURDES SIA-BERNAS, FERNANDO AMOR, EDUARDO
AGUILAR, JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, Respondents, G.R. No. 179243
September 7, 2011, the Supreme Court held that there is intimidation
when one of the parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded
fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or
upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants,
to give his consent. Hence, there must be the presence of an intense
fear to produce such intimidation necessary to commit grave coercion.

In this case, the five accused being present with only one of them
holding a bolo is insufficient to produce the intimidation required as
the Dallas workers outnumber them notwithstanding that they have their
own tools with them.

It is clear that the testimonies and evidence presented by the

prosecution lack the element of violence through force or such display
of force that would produce intimidation and control the will of the
offended party that would convict the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of grave coercion.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

this case be now dismissed due to lack of compelling evidence to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted.

March 20, 2020, Davao City, Philippines

PHILIP JOHN POJAS

Cousel for the Accused