Article 286: Grave Coercion

Art 286. Grave coercions. -The penalty of prision correctional and a fine not exceeding
six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law
shall by means of violence, threats or intimidation, prevent another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether
it be right or wrong.

If the coercion be committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage or

for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him
from exercising such right or from doing such act, the penalty next higher in degree
shall be imposed.

The elements of are as follows:

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;

2) That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or

intimidation; and

3) That the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do
so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.

Case: US vs Balcorta, 25 Phil. 273

Facts:

First Element: 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;

The accused entered a private house, uninvited, where services of the Methodist
Episcopal Church were being conducted by between ten and twenty persons, and
threatened the assemblage with a club, thereby interrupting or disturbing the divine
service.

Second Element: That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence,

threats or intimidation; and
 He simply threatened to assault them with a stick he was carrying if they did not
stop the services. The people thus dispersed by the defendant were not holding
religious services, as they were simply reading some verses out of the Bible.

Third Element: That the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has
no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority
of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.

Neither the accused is a person of authority nor in the exercise of any lawful
right. The record fails to disclose the purpose of the defendant in committing the acts
complained of. It is true that it is shown that the defendant was of the Aglipayan faith,
while the members of the congregation were of a different sect, but none of the
witnesses for the prosecution state that the defendant made any comment whatever
upon religion. 

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is correctly charged under article 223 of the Penal
Code which imposes upon any person who, by means of threats, violence, or other
equivalent compulsion, shall force some other person to perform an act of worship or
prevent him from performing such act.

Ruling:

No. Under the circumstances, and considering that it is not proven that religious
hatred prompted the defendant to act as he did, his offense appears to be simply that of
disturbing or interrupting the religious services.  An essential element of the crime
provided for in article 223 was not proved and the court erred in finding him guilty of the
crime therein defined.

(An essential element of the crime punished under the second paragraph of Art 286, is
the intent to coercively control the religious beliefs of another)