Timoner vs. People

Timoner vs. People

• Mayor fenced public nuisance. • Abatement of public nuisance without judicial proceedings, municipal mayor not criminally

liable when he acted in good faith in authorizing the fencing of a barbershop for being a public nuisance because it occupied a portion of the sidewalk. Art 699 authorizes the abatement of a public nuisance without judicial proceedings. • Grave coercion is committed when a person who without authority of law, shall by means

of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do something against his will either it be right or wrong. • Elements:

a.

That any person be prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong.

b. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material forceor such display of it as would produceintimidation and control the will of t he offended party c.

That the person who restrained the w ill and liberty of another had no right to do so, or, in other words, that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right.

Facts:

The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. The petitioner was the m ayor of a town and by the recommendation of the Municipal Health Officer, he barricaded some establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway and who were not complying with certain health and sanitation requirement. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of the stalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se. The owners o f the stalls charged the petitioner with the offense of grave coer cion. Issue: W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the

complainants were public nuisance. Decision:

The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighbourhood. Petitioner, as mayor of the town, merely implemented the aforesaidrecommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in good faith in the performance of his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who, without authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another from doing something notprohibited by law or compel to do something against his will, either it be right or wrong." The third element being absent in the case at bar, petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.