FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28716. November 18, 1970.]

FELIX CAISIP, IGNACIO ROJALES and FEDERICO

VILLADELREY, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Godofredo F. Trajano & Rafael A. Francisco for petitioners.

Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio
G. Ibarra and Solicitor Conrado T. Limcaoco for respondents.

DECISION

CONCEPCION, J : p

This case is before Us upon petition of defendants Felix Caisip, Ignacio

Rojales and Federico Villadelrey, for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the Court of First Instance of
Batangas, convicting them of the crime of Grave Coercion, with which they
are charged, and sentencing each to four (4) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor and to pay a fine of P200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, as well
as one-third of the costs.
As set forth in the trial court's decision, the background of the present
case is this:
"The complainant Gloria Cabalag is the wife of Marcelino
Guevarra who cultivated a parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of
Hacienda Palico situated in sitio Bote-bote, barrio Tampisao,
Nasugbu, Batangas. The said parcel of land used to be tenanted
by the deceased father of the complainant. Hacienda Palico is
owned by Roxas y Cia. and administered by Antonio Chuidian. The
overseer of the said hacienda is Felix Caisip, one of the accused
herein. Even before the occurrence of the incident presently
involved, there had been a series of misunderstandings and
litigations involving the complainant and her husband, on one
hand, and the men of Hacienda Palico on the other.

"It appears that on December 23, 1957, Marcelino Guevarra

filed an action with the Court of Agrarian Relations seeking
recognition as a lawful tenant of Roxas y Cia. over Lot No. 105-A of
Hacienda Palico. In a decision dated February 22, 1958, the Court
of Agrarian Relations declared it has no jurisdiction over the case,
inasmuch as Guevarra is not a tenant on the said parcel of land.
An appeal was taken by Guevarra to the Supreme Court, but the
appeal was dismissed in a resolution dated April 10, 1958.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "On May 17, 1958, Roxas y Cia. filed an action against
Marcelino Guevarra in the justice of the peace court of Nasugbu,
Batangas, for forcible entry, praying therein that Guevarra be
ejected from the premises of Lot No. 105-A. After due hearing, the
said Court in a decision dated May 2, 1959 ordered Guevarra to
vacate the lot and to pay damages and accrued rentals. A writ of
execution was issued by Justice of the Peace Rodolfo A. Castillo of
Nasugbu, which was served on Guevarra on June 6, 1959, and the
return of which was made by Deputy Sheriff Leonardo R. Aquino of
this Court on June 23, 1959 (Exhibit `10'). The writ recites among
other things that the possession of the land was delivered to the
Roxas y Cia. thru Felix Caisip, the overseer, and Guevarra was
given twenty days from June 6, 1959 within which to leave the
premises."

The record before Us does not explain why said decision was executed.
According to the complainant, her husband's counsel had appealed from said
decision. The justice of the peace who rendered it, Hon. Rodolfo Castillo, said
that there really had been an attempt to appeal, which was not given due
course because the reglementary period therefor had expired; that a motion
to reconsider his order to this effect was denied by him; and that a second
motion for reconsideration was "still pending consideration," and it was
October 19, 1959 when such testimony was given.
Continuing the narration of the antecedent facts, His Honor, the Trial
Judge, added:
"On June 15, 1959, some trouble occurred between the
complainant and Caisip regarding the cutting of sugar cane on Lot
105-A. The following day June 16, 1959, the complainant allegedly
again entered the premises of Lot 105-A and refused to be driven
out by Felix Caisip. Due to the aforementioned incidents, Gloria
Cabalag was charged in the justice of the peace court of Nasugbu,
Batangas, with grave coercion for the incident of June 15, 1959,
docketed in the said court as Criminal Case No. 968 (Exhibit `3');
and with the crime of unjust vexation for the incident of June 16,
1959, docketed in the said court as Criminal Case No. 970. Both
cases, however, were filed only on June 25, 1959."

In other words, these criminal cases, Nos. 968 and 970, against Gloria
Cabalag, were filed eight (8) days after the incident involved in the case at
bar. It is, also, noteworthy that both cases were — on motion of the
prosecution, filed after a reinvestigation thereof — provisionally dismissed,
on November 8, 1960, by the Court of First Instance of Batangas, upon the
ground "that the evidence of record . . . are insufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt." The decision of said court, in the
case at bar, goes on to say:
"It further appears that due to the tenacious attitude of
Gloria Cabalag to remain in the premises, Caisip sought the help of
the chief of police of Nasugbu who advised him to see Deputy
Sheriff Aquino about the matter. The latter, however, informed
Caisip that he could not act on the request to eject Gloria Cabalag
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and to stop her from what she was doing without a proper court
order. Caisip then consulted Antonio Chuidian, the hacienda
administrator, who, in turn, went to the chief of police and
requested for the detail of policemen in sitio Bote-bote. The chief
of police, acting on said request, assigned the accused Ignacio
Rojales and Federico Villadelrey, police sergeant and police
corporal, respectively, of the Nasugbu Police Force, to sitio Bote-
bote." 1

On June 17, 1959, at about 5:00 p.m., Gloria Cabalag was seen
weeding the portion of Lot 105-A which was a ricefield. Appellant Caisip
approached her and bade her to leave, but she refused to do so, alleging
that she and her husband had the right to stay there and that the crops
thereon belong to them. She having stuck to this attitude, even when he
threatened to call the police, Caisip went to his co-defendants, Sgt. Rojales
and Cpl. Villadelrey, both of the local police, who were some distance away,
and brought them with him. Rojales told Gloria, who was then in a squatting
position, to stop weeding. As Gloria insisted on her right to stay in said lot,
Rojales grabbed her right hand and, twisting the same, wrested therefrom
the trowel she was holding. Thereupon, Villadelrey held her left hand and,
together with Rojales, forcibly dragged her northward — towards a forested
area, where there was a banana plantation — as Caisip stood nearby, with a
drawn gun.
Inasmuch as Gloria shouted "Ina ko po! Ina ko po!" 2 her neighbors,
Librada Dulutan, followed, soon later, by Francisca Andino, came and asked
the policemen why they were dragging her. The policemen having answered
that they would take Gloria to town — which was on the west — Francisca
Andino pleaded that Gloria be released, saying that, if their purpose was as
stated by them, she (Gloria) would willingly go with them. By this time, Gloria
had already been dragged about eight meters and her dress, as well as her
blouse 3 were torn. She then agreed to proceed westward to the municipal
building, and asked to be allowed to pass by her house, within Lot 105-A, in
order to breast-feed her nursing infant, but, the request was turned down.
As they passed, soon later, near the house of Zoilo Rivera, head of the
tenant organization to which she was affiliated, in the barrio of
Camachilihan, Gloria called out for him, whereupon, he went down the house
and accompanied them to the municipal building. Upon arrival thereat,
Rojales and Villadelrey turned her over to the policeman on duty, and then
departed. After being interrogated by the chief of police, Gloria was, upon
representations made by Zoilo Rivera, released and allowed to go home.
The foregoing is the prosecution's version. That of the defense is to the
effect that, upon being asked by the policemen to stop weeding and leave
the premises, Gloria, not only refused to do so, but, also, insulted them, as
well as Caisip. According to the defense, she was arrested because of the
crime of slander then committed by her. Appellant Rojales and Villadelrey,
moreover, testified that, as they were heading towards the barrio of
Camachilihan, Gloria proceeded to tear her clothes.
His Honor, the Trial Judge, accepted, however, the version of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prosecution and found that of the defense unworthy of credence. The
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which fully concurred in this view,
are "final," and our authority to review on certiorari its appealed decision is
limited to questions purely of law. 4 Appellants maintain that the Court of
Appeals has erred: (1) in not finding their acts "justified under Article 429 of
the New Civil Code"; (2) in holding that the 20-day period of grace given to
Marcelino Guevarra and his wife, Gloria Cabalag, by the sheriff, to vacate Lot
105-A, was valid and lawful; (3) in finding that the elements of the crime of
grave coercion are present in the case at bar; and (4) in finding appellants
guilty as charged. This pretense is clearly untenable.
Art. 429 of our Civil Code, reading:
"The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property."

upon which appellants rely is obviously inapplicable to the case at bar,

for, having been given 20 days from June 6, 1959, within which to vacate Lot
105-A, complainant did not, on June 17, 1959 — or within said period —
invade or usurp said lot. She had merely remained in possession thereof,
even though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor.
Appellants did not "repel or prevent in actual or threatened . . . physical
invasion or usurpation." They expelled Gloria from a property of which she
and her husband were in possession even before the action for forcible entry
was filed against them on May 17, 1958, despite the fact that the Sheriff had
explicitly authorized them to stay in said property up to June 26, 1959, and
had expressed the view that he could not oust them therefrom On June 17,
1959, without a judicial order therefor.

It is urged, that, by weeding and refusing to leave Lot 105-A, Gloria had
committed a crime in the presence of the policemen, despite the
aforementioned 20-day period, which, appellants claim, the sheriff had no
authority to grant. This contention is manifestly untenable, because: (1) said
period was granted in the presence of the hacienda owner's representative,
appellant Caisip, who, by not objecting thereto, had impliedly consented to
or ratified the eat performed by the sheriff; 2) Gloria and her husband were
thereby allowed to remain, and had, in fact, remained, in possession of the
premises, perhaps together with the owner of the hacienda or his
representative, Caisip; (3) the act of removing weeds from the ricefield was
beneficial to its owner and to whomsoever the crops belonged, and, even if
they had not authorized it, does not constitute a criminal offense; and (4)
although Gloria and her husband had been sentenced to vacate the land, the
judgment against them did not necessarily imply that they, as the parties
who had tilled it and planted thereon, had no rights, of any kind whatsoever,
in or to the standing crops, inasmuch as "necessary expenses shall be
refunded to every possessor," 5 and the cost of cultivation, production and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 upkeep has been held to partake of the nature of necessary expenses. 6
It is, accordingly, clear that appellants herein had, by means of
violence, and without legal authority therefor, prevented the complainant
from "doing something not prohibited by law," (weeding and being in Lot
105-A), and compelled her "to do something against" her will (stopping the
weeding and leaving said lot), "whether it be right or wrong," thereby taking
the law into their hands, in violation of Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code. 7
Appellant Caisip argues that, not having used violence against the
complaining witness, he should be acquitted of the charge. In this
connection, His Honor, the Trial Judge, correctly observed:
". . . While it is true that the accused Caisip did not lay hands
on the complainant, unlike the accused Rojales and Villadelrey
who were the ones who used force against Gloria, and while the
Court is also inclined to discredit the claim of the complainant that
Felix Caisip drew a gun during the incident, it sufficiently appears
from the record that the motivation and inducement for the
coercion perpetrated on the complainant came from the accused
Caisip. It was his undisguised and particular purpose to prevent
Gloria from entering the land and working on the same. He was
the one who first approached Gloria with this objective in mind,
and tried to prevent her from weeding the land. He had tried to
stop Gloria from doing the same act even the day previous to the
present incident. It was Caisip who fetched the policemen in order
to accomplish his purpose of preventing Gloria from weeding the
land and making her leave the premises. The policemen obeyed
his bidding, and even when the said policemen were already over-
asserting their authority as peace officers, Caisip simply ,stood by
without attempting to stop their abuses. He could be hardly said to
have disapproved an act which he himself induced and initiated." 8

In other words, there was community of purpose between the

policemen and Caisip, so that the latter is guilty of grave coercion, as a co-
conspirator, apart from being a principal by induction. 9
In the commission of the offense, the aggravating circumstances of
abuse of superior strength 10 and disregard of the respect due the offended
party, by reason of her sex, 11 were present, insofar as the three appellants
herein are concerned. As regards appellants Rojales and Villadelrey, there
was the additional aggravating circumstance of having taken advantage of
their positions as members of the local police force. Hence, the penalty of
imprisonment meted out to appellants herein, which is the minimum of the
maximum prescribed in said Art. 286, 12 and the fine imposed upon them,
are in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the defendants-appellants. It is so ordered.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and
Barredo, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., is on leave.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Makasiar, J., took no part.
Villamor, J., did not take part.

Footnotes
1. Brief for the Appellants, pp. 58-60.

2. "My mother! My mother!"

3. "Chambra."

4. Section 29, Rep. Act No. 296, as amended; Garcia v. Cruz, L-25790, Sept. 27,
1968; People v. Caragao, L-28258, Dec. 27, 1969; Uy v. Tuason & Co., L-
21525, Jan. 30, 1970.

5. Art. 546, Civil Code of the Philippines.

6. Mendoza v. De Guzman, 52 Phil. 164.
7. U.S. v. Mena, 11 Phil. 543.
8. Brief for the Appellants, pp. 73-74.
9. U.S. v. Tremoya, 10 Phil. 89; People v. Mancao, 49 Phil. 887; People v.
Agbuya, 57 Phil. 238; People v. Timbol, G.R. No. 47471-47473, Aug. 4, 1944;
People v. Delgado, 77 Phil. 11; People v. San Luis, 36 Phil. 485.
10. People v. De Guzman, 51 Phil. 105; People v. Flores, 52 Phil. 473.
11. U.S. v. Quevengco, 2 Phil. 412.
12. ". . . arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos . . ."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com