GR 166315; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166315 , December 14, 2006
ALFREDO SY, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, LEON MARIA MAGSAYSAY and ENGR. EMMANUEL LALIN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Sy family, resided in a building on a parcel of land in Paco, Manila. Respondent Leon Maria Magsaysay, acting as attorney-in-fact for the landowner, had previously filed an ejectment case against them, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of that appeal, Magsaysay obtained a Notice of Condemnation from the Manila Building Official. Petitioners secured a Certificate of Structural Inspection from a licensed engineer attesting to the building’s integrity. Despite this and a pending Motion for Reconsideration with the DPWH against a subsequent demolition order, and with a TRO in effect, respondent Emmanuel Lalin, with a group of men and tools, arrived on August 28, 1998, and demolished the petitioners’ family residence and store over their protests.
Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. The City Prosecutor and, on appeal, the Secretary of Justice dismissed the complaint, ruling the demolition was pursuant to a lawful order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Petitioners thus elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the Secretary of Justice gravely abused his discretion in not finding probable cause.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for Grave Coercion for lack of probable cause.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the filing of an information against the respondents. Probable cause merely requires such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty. It does not require evidence sufficient for conviction. The elements of Grave Coercion are: (1) a person is prevented from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled to do something against his will, and (2) the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats, or intimidation.
The Court found a prima facie case existed. The demolition was carried out while petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the demolition order was pending with the DPWH and, crucially, while a Temporary Restraining Order was in effect. The act of proceeding with the demolition under these circumstances—over the owners’ protests and in defiance of a judicial TRO—constitutes the violence or intimidation necessary for coercion, as it unlawfully compelled petitioners to acquiesce to the destruction of their property. The claim of acting under a lawful order was a matter of defense best ventilated in a full trial. The Secretary of Justice’s dismissal, despite this evidence showing a likelihood that a crime was committed, constituted grave error warranting judicial reversal.