Section Three.

— Threats and coercion

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 be 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 100,000 pesos, if the threat shall
not have been made subject to a condition.

ELEMENTS

1. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s
PERSON, HONOR, or PROPERTY, or upon that of the latter’s FAMILY, of any wrong.
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed, eventhough
not unlawful.
4. That the offender attains his purpose. (binigay ang gusto nya or condition nya)

Against your person

“Papatayin kita kung hindi mo ako bibigyan ng pera bukas” (there is a demand for money)
Crime: Homicide/Murder/Parricide

Against your Honor

“Maglalagay ako ng shabu sa sasakyan mo para huliin ka ng pulis, kapag hindi mo ako
binigyan ng cellphone”(there is a condition imposed) Crime: Planting of Evidence under RA
9165

Against your property

“Susunugin ko bahay mo kung ayaw mong mamigay ng pagkain” Crime: Arson

Against your Family

“Kikidnapin ko anak mon a babae kung ayaw mo siyang ipakasal sa akin.” Crime:
Kidnapping and serious Illegal detention

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property
or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money
or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful and the offender
attained his purpose.
2. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose.

1. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter’s
PERSON, HONOR, or PROPERTY, or upon that of the latter’s FAMILY, of any wrong.
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime
3. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed, eventhough
not unlawful.
4. That the offender did NOT attains his purpose.

3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property
or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being
subject to a condition.
PENALTIES:

FIRST ACT: That the
offender attained his
purpose
SECOND ACT: That the THIRD ACT: Not
offender DID NOT subject for condition
ATTAIN his purpose
Example: “papatayin
kita”

Penalty next lower in Penalty lower by two The penalty is FIXED.

degree (2) degrees The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not
exceeding 100,000

Question: What is considered in imposing the penalties above?

Answer: Penalty prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit.

“Papatayin kita kung hindi mo ako bibigyan ng pera bukas.” The crime
threatened to committed is Homicide.

HOMICIDE – penalty is Reclusion Temporal under Art. 249 of the RPC

Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal --- Homicide
Prision Mayor ---- Attained his purpose (1 degree lower)
Prision correctional --- Did not attained his purpose (2 degrees lower)
Arresto Mayor
Arresto menor

Aggravating circumstances and the penalty is in its MAXIMUM PERIOD.

(1) if made in writing, or
(2) made through a middleman.

The crime is frustrated if the threat was not received by the person being
threatened.

Threat not made in heat of anger, because such threat would be punished as
“Other Light Threats”

Example: Outside the house of Pedro, Juan challenged Pedro to a gun duel.
Right after, Juan fired two warning shots. However, Pedro was out of town
during that time. When Pedro arrived at his house, his neighbor informed him
about what happened earlier and about the challenge made by Juan. Is Juan
liable for Grave Threat even if Pedro was not present when the threat was
made?

Answer: Grave threats may be committed by indirect challenge to a gunfight,

even if complainant was absent when challenge was made; it is sufficient that
threats came to knowledge of offended party. It is not necessary that there is
a face to face confrontation or necessarily heard the threats.

 In Grave Threats, there is a promise of some FUTURE harm or injury.

Example: Juan saw Pedro walking along the street. Juan picked up a big rock
and told Pedro, “If you will not give me your money, I will bash your head with
this rock?” Is Juan liable for Grave Threat?

Answer: No. In Grave Threats, there is a promise of some FUTURE harm or

injury. In this case, there is no promise of FUTURE harm or injury. The harm is
IMMENENT and IMMEDIATE. The crime committed by Juan is Robbery with
intimidation.

Threats made in connection with the commission of other crimes are absorbed
by the latter.

The offender in grave threats does not demand the delivery on the spot of the
money or other personal property asked by him

When consummated: As soon as the threats came to the knowledge of the

offended party.

It is not necessary that the offended party was present at the time the threats
were made. It is sufficient that the threats came to his knowledge.

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.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. That there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful.

4. Offender has attained his purpose of that he has not attained his purpose.

In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime.

Requires that there be a demand of money or that other condition be imposed

Blackmailing may be punished under this provision.

The harm threatened must not be in the nature of crime and there is a demand
for money or any other condition is imposed, eventhough lawful.

ELEMENTS of 1st and 2nd Acts of Elements of Light Threats

Grave Threats

1. That the offender threatens 1. Offender makes a threat to

another person with the
infliction upon the latter’s
person, honor, or property, or
upon that of the latter’s family,
of any wrong
2. That such wrong amounts to a
crime
3. That there is a demand for
money or that any other
condition is imposed,
eventhough not unlawful.
4. That the offender attains his
purpose/ did not attain his
purpose
commit a wrong
2. The wrong does not constitute
a crime
3. There is a demand for money or
that other condition is imposed,
even though not unlawful
4. Offender has attained his
purpose or that he has not
attained his purpose.

Example1: Pedro told Chu, a Chinese businessman, that if he will not give him
Php 500,000, he will report Chu to the authorities for tax evasion for not
paying taxes when he bought a parcel of land.
Example 2: Pedro, a college professor, told Juan that he will flunk him and
give him failing grades if Juan will not give him a brand new car.

(This scenario is wrong but does not constitute a crime)

Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next preceding
articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the
person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

WHEN A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO GIVE BAIL BOND

1. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 282.
2. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 283.

The person making the threats under the 2 preceding articles (grave and light
threats) may also be required by the court to give bail conditioned upon the
promise not to molest the person threatened.

Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine
not exceeding 40,000 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.

ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing a weapon in a quarrel,
unless it be in lawful self-defense.

Example: While Maria was on her way to her house, Pedro approached
her. Pedro insulted her and made hacking gestures while carrying a bolo.
What crime did Pedro commit?

2. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm

constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea involved in the threat.
(Much similar to grave threats, 3rd acts)

3. By orally threatening another with harm not constituting a felony.

No demand for money or condition involved.

Threat is not deliberate.

Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the offender must show that he
did not persist in the idea involved in the threat.

If the threats are directed to a person who is absent and uttered in a

temporary fit of anger, the offense is only other light threats.

Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in the heat of anger, may
be other light threats.

Grave Threat which is NOT SUBJECT Other Light Threats under No.2
 TO A CONDITION

1. That the offender threatens 1. By orally threatening another

another person with the 2. With some harm constituting a
infliction upon the latter’s crime
person, honor, or property, or 3. In the heat of anger
upon that of the latter’s family, 4. Without persisting in the idea
of any wrong. involved in his threat.
2. That such wrong among
amounts to a crime
3. That the threat is NOT subject
to a condition

Example1: Pedro and Juan had a heated argument. Pedro said that he would
cut Juan into pieces and Pedro raised his bolo. The people present held his
hand to stop him. After that, Pedro calmed down.

Answer: Pedro is liable for Other Light Threats under Art. 285 par 2 (people v
Padayhag, O.G. 2365, May 15, 1937)

To fall under Other Light Threats and NOT grave Threats, the following must
be shown:

1. Threat was made in the HEAT OF ANGER.

2. Subsequent acts of the accused showed that he did not persist in the
idea involved in his threat.

Example 2: Pedro wrote a letter to Juan. In the letter, Pedro wrote, “papatayin
kitang animal ka.” Is Pedro liable for Other Light Threat under Art 285 par 2.

Answer: No. The threat must be oral to be held liable under paragraph 2 of
Other Light Threat. The facts given above was the threat was made in writing
so Pedro will be held liable for Grave Threats.

Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of prision correctional and a fine not exceeding
100,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by
means of violence, 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 for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious
act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

ELEMENTS:
1. That a person...
a. prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or
b. compel him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong
2. Violence, threats or intimidation, either material force or such display of
force as would produce
intimidation and control of the will.
3. Without authority of law

Aggravating circumstances:
1. Violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage
2. Compelling another to perform a religious act or
3. preventing another from exercising such right or from doing such act (as
amended by RA. 7890)

The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is employed to seize
anything belonging to the debtor of the offender. It is light coercion under Art.
287.

Any person who shall use force or intimidation to prevent any member of
Congress from attending the meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or
casting his vote is liable under Art. 145.

Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a legislative body is liable
under Art. 143.

A public officer who shall prevent by means of violence or threats the

ceremonies or manifestations of any religion is guilty of interruption of
religious worship (Art. 132).

In case of grave coercion where the offended party is being compelled to do

something against his will, whether it be wrong or not, the crime of grave
coercion is committed if violence or intimidation is employed in order to
compel him to do the act.

If a person prohibits another to do an act because the act is a crime, even

though some sort of violence or intimidation is employed, it would not give
rise to grave coercion. It may only give rise to threats or physical injuries if
some injuries are inflicted.

Arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not
prohibited by law or ordinance.

Purpose Of The Law: To enforce the principle that no person may take the law
into his hands, and that our government is one of law, not of men.

The thing prevented from execution must not be prohibited by law. Otherwise,
there will be no coercion.

Lee v. CA, 201 SCRA 405

Neither the crime of threats nor coercion is committed although the accused,
a branch manager of a bank made the complainant sign a withdrawal slip for
the amount needed to pay the spurious dollar check she had encashed, and
also made her execute an affidavit regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and judgment.

The complainant may have acted reluctantly and with hesitation, but still, it
was voluntary.

Bar Exam Question (1998)

Grave Coercion Meaning (1998)

Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the
said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs
to him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will
not give back the necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and
against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani, What offense did Isagani
commit?

Suggested Answer:

Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling
Roy, by means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the
latter's will, whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation
approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is
the nature of the threat in this case because it was committed with a gun,
which is a deadly weapon. The crime is not robbery because intent to gain,
which is an essential element of robbery, is absent since the necklace belongs
to Isagani.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)

Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion,

the basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious
intimidation approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent a
person from doing something not prohibited by law or to compel him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in Illegal
detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of a person,
thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no
intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal
detention is not committed.

Art. 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 of arresto mayor in 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 by arresto menor or a fine ranging
from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

Elements
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display
of material force producing intimidation;
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt.

Any other coercion or unjust vexation

Paragraph 2 of Art. 287 covers unjust vexation. It includes any human conduct
which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would,
however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.

Light coercion under the 1st paragraph of this article will only be unjust
vexation if the 3rd element (employing violence or intimidation) is absent.

Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion by the absence of

violence.

Unjust vexation is a light felony, not against person and property and
punishable only when it is consummated.

Bar Exam Question (1994)

Unjust Vexation vs Acts of Lasciviousness (1994) or slander by deed or
malicious mischief

When is embracing, kissing, and touching a girl's breast considered only

unjust vexation instead of acts of lasciviousness?

Suggested Answer:

The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or

other motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace
without lewd design constitute merely unjust vexation (People vs, Ignacio. CA
GRNo. 5119-R, September 30, 1950). However, where the kissing, embracing
and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the
same constitute acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA
753).

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Unjust Vexation vs. Act of Lasciviousness (2006)

Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at
the age of 70 gave him the opportunity to
engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high-powered
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second
choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up
to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While ascending the stairs, he stayed one
step behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip
and gently massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was
arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the
crime correct?

Alternative Answer:

The designation of the crime as acts of lasciviousness is not correct. There is

no lewd design exhibited by Eduardo when he placed his hand on the left hip
of the victim and gently massaging it. The act does not clearly show an
exclusively sexual motivation. The crime he committed is only unjust vexation
for causing annoyance, irritation or disturbance to the victim (Art. 287,
Revised Penal Code), not acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336, Revised Penal
Code).

Alternative Answer:

The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610,
par. b of Section 3 that refers to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or
words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10 provides criminal
liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The reaction of the victim,
screaming for help upon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she
perceived her dignity was being debased or violated.

Art. 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 laborer or employee.

ACTS PUNISHED:
1. By forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting the
forcing or compelling of the laborer or employee of the offender to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind from him.
2. By paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of tokens or
objects other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer or employee.

ELEMENTS OF NO. 1:
1. That the offender is any person , agent or officer of any association or
corporation.
2. That he or such firm or corporation has employed laborers
or employees
3. That he forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permits to be
forced or compelled, any of his or its laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind from him or from said firm or
corporation.

ELEMENTS OF NO. 2:
1. That the offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee employed by
him by means of tokens or objects
2. That those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines.
3. That such employee or laborer does not expressly request that he be paid
by means of tokens or objects

General rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender and the use of tokens,
promissory notes, vouchers, coupons or any other forms alleged to represent
legal tender is absolutely prohibited even when expressly requested by the
employee. (Section 1, Rule VIII, Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code)

No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with the freedom of any

employee to dispose of his wages. He shall not in any manner force, compel,
oblige his employees to purchase merchandise, commodities or other property
from the employer or from any other person. (Art. 112, Labor Code.)

Art. 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.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender employs 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; and
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or
labor, strike of laborers or lockout of employees.
3. If the act shall not constitute a more serious offense.

The act should not be a more serious offense. If death or some serious
physical injuries are caused in an effort to curtail the exercise of the rights of
the laborers and employers, the act should be punished in accordance with
the other provisions of the Code.

Peaceful picketing is not prohibited.

Threats made or violence employed by picketers may make them liable for
coercion.

SCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. — The penalty of

prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another,
shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.

If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.

The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the
custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under
their care or study, nor to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the
exercise of his official function;
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person; and
4. That offender is informed of the contents or the papers or letters seized.

This article is not applicable to parents with respect to their minor children or
to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

Contents of the correspondence need not be secret. The purpose of the

offender prevails.

Qualifying circumstance: When the offender reveals the contents of such

papers or letters to a 3rd person.

This article does not require that the offended party be prejudiced.

This is a crime against the security of one’s papers and effects.

The purpose must be to discover its effects. The act violates the privacy of
communication.

According to Ortega, it is not necessary that the offender should actually

discover the contents of the letter. Reyes, citing

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant
who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such
secrets.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a manager, employee or servant;
2. That he learns the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity; and
3. That he reveals such secrets.

Damage is not required by this article.

An employee, manager, or servant who came to know of the secret of his

master or principal in such capacity and reveals the same shall also be liable
regardless of whether or not the principal or master
suffered damages.

Essence of this crime is that the offender learned of the secret in the course
of his employment. He is enjoying a confidential relation with the employer or
master so he should respect the privacy of
matters personal to the latter.

If the matter pertains to the business of the employer or master, damage is

necessary and the agent, employee or servant shall always be liable. Reason:
no one has a right to the personal privacy
of another.

Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the
person in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment
who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a
manufacturing or industrial establishment;
2. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the
industry which the offender has learned;
3. That the offender reveals such secrets; and
4. That prejudice is caused to the owner.

Prejudice is an essential element of this offense

Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.

The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret of the industry which
the offender has learned.

The revelation of the secret might be made after the employee or workman
had ceased to be connected with the establishment.