G.R. No. 179243 ; September 7, 2011
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.

FACTS

Petitioner Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro was the lessee-purchaser of a condominium unit under a Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase with Oakridge Properties, Inc. (OPI). He sub-leased the unit to the other petitioners for use as a law office. Due to a defect in the air-conditioning unit, petitioners suspended rental payments. OPI filed an ejectment case against Alejandro. During the pendency of this case, OPI, allegedly through respondents, padlocked the unit on two occasions (June 10, 2004 and August 11, 2004) and cut off electricity, water, and telephone facilities on August 16, 2004. The MeTC had earlier ordered OPI to remove the padlock. On August 17, 2004, the MeTC decided the ejectment case in favor of Alejandro, but this was later reversed by the RTC and CA. Petitioners filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion against respondents with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP). The OCP found probable cause for unjust vexation against respondents Amor and Aguilar but dismissed the charges against the Bernases for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioners appealed to the DOJ Secretary, but the appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with a procedural requirement (failure to submit a legible true copy of a joint counter-affidavit). Their motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA upheld the DOJ’s dismissal, ruling that the DOJ re-evaluated the merits upon the motion for reconsideration and that no probable cause for grave coercion existed, as the mere presence of security guards was insufficient to constitute intimidation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition despite an alleged showing of a prima facie case for grave coercion.
2. Whether the DOJ Resolution was anomalous due to a fabricated ground for dismissal necessitating judicial review.
3. Whether grave coercion can be committed through intimidation alone without violence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The propriety of the DOJ’s dismissal on a technicality was upheld, as the CA correctly noted that the DOJ re-evaluated the merits upon the motion for reconsideration. On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the CA’s finding of no probable cause for grave coercion. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, and in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, courts will not interfere. The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are: (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; and (2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats, or intimidation. The Court ruled that the acts of padlocking and cutting off utilities, by themselves, did not constitute violence, threats, or intimidation as required by law. The mere presence of security guards during the padlocking was insufficient to cause the kind of intimidation that would compel a person to act against his will. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that intimidation must be of such a degree as to overwhelm the will of the victim. Since the essential element of violence or intimidation was not sufficiently alleged or proven, no probable cause for grave coercion existed. The charge of unjust vexation was the more appropriate offense.