Case Digest: Consulta vs People GR 179462 12 Feb 2009

               Art. 286: Grave Coercion | Criminal Law

Facts:
Pedro C. Consulta was found guilty of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.
On June 7, 1999, Nelia Silvestre and her companions were riding a tricycle in Makati City when they were blocked by the appellant and his brother. The appellant threatened and insulted Nelia, and then forcefully took her gold necklace before leaving. Nelia and her companions reported the incident to the police and sought medical examination.

The appellant denied the charges and claimed that they were fabricated. He mentioned a history of disputes between his family and Nelia's family regarding rental payments. He also stated that Nelia had filed cases against him in the past, which were either dismissed or resulted in his acquittal. The appellant further claimed that Nelia would track his whereabouts and cause trouble despite his efforts to avoid her.

The defense presented witnesses who testified that on the day of the alleged robbery, Nelia and her companions approached them and asked if they knew the appellant. These witnesses stated that they accompanied Nelia to the appellant's house, but upon arrival, the appellant told them to leave to avoid trouble.

One of the defense witnesses, Darius Pacaña, stated that Nelia insulted the appellant and called him and his companions "animals" before leaving the house.

Another defense witness, Thelma Vuesa, supported Pacaña's account.

RTC, CA:  Pedro C. Consulta guilty of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.

Issues: 

WoN the appellant has committed the crime of which he was charged.

Held:

NO.  Appellant is guilty of grave coercion.

Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. It may be presumed from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.

The Court finds that under the above-mentioned circumstances surrounding the incidental encounter of the parties, the taking of Nelia’s necklace does not indicate presence of intent to gain on appellant’s part. That intent to gain on appellant’s part is difficult to appreciate gains light given his undenied claim that his relationship with Nelia is rife with ill-feelings, manifested by, among other things, the filing of complaints against him by Nelia and her family which were subsequently dismissed or ended in his acquittal.

Absent intent to gain on the part of appellant, robbery does not lie against him. He is not necessarily scot-free, however.

From the pre-existing sour relations between Nelia and her family on one hand, and appellant and family on the other, and under the circumstances related above attendant to the incidental encounter of the parties, appellant’s taking of Nelia’s necklace could not have been animated with animus lucrandi. Appellant is, however, just the same, criminally liable.

For "[w]hen there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved."

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.9 (Italics in the original, underscoring supplied)

Grave coercion, like robbery, has violence for one of its elements. 

The difference in robbery and grave coercion lies in the intent in the commission of the act. The motives of the accused are the prime criterion:

The distinction between the two lines of decisions, the one holding to robbery and the other to coercion, is deemed to be the intention of the accused. Was the purpose with intent to gain to take the property of another by use of force or intimidation? Then, conviction for robbery. Was the purpose, without authority of law but still believing himself the owner or the creditor, to compel another to do something against his will and to seize property? Then, conviction for coercion under Article 497 of the Penal Code. The motives of the accused are the prime criterion. And there was no common robber in the present case, but a man who had fought bitterly for title to his ancestral estate, taking the law into his own hands and attempting to collect what he thought was due him. Animus furandi was lacking."

The Court finds that by appellant’s employment of threats, intimidation and violence consisting of, inter alia, uttering of invectives, driving away of the tricycle driver, and kicking of the tricycle, Nelia was prevented from proceeding to her destination.

Penalty:

Indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to three (3) years and six (6) months of prision correccional medium as maximum;

Ordered to return the necklace, failing which he is ordered to pay its value, Three Thousand Five Hundred (₱3,500) Pesos.