View full case

FRANCIS LEE v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Francis Lee, filed a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals that reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and reinstated the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The RTC found the petitioner guilty of light coercion and sentenced him to 20 days of arresto menor, while the MTC convicted the petitioner of grave coercion and sentenced him to three months of arresto mayor, medium, and ordered him to pay a fine and indemnify the offended party.

On June 20, 1984, the complainant, Pelagia Paulino de Chin, was fetched from her house by a bank employee upon the instruction of the petitioner, who was the bank manager. Upon arriving at the bank, the petitioner did not attend to her immediately. After an hour, the petitioner confronted her about a forged cashier check and shouted at her, threatening to file charges unless she returned the money. The petitioner made her sign a withdrawal slip and later an affidavit admitting her guilt. She was watched by bank employees during her stay.

The petitioner presented a denial of the charges, claiming that the complainant was responsible for the forged check and that she voluntarily returned the money. The sole issue in this case is whether the acts of the petitioner, specifically shouting and making threats, are sufficient to convict him of grave coercion. The relevant provisions are Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code on grave coercion and Article 1335 of the New Civil Code on intimidation.

The complainant in this case is described as a highly educated individual who is familiar with banking procedures. She worked as a bank teller in the past and holds a degree in Business Administration major in Banking and Finance. Moreover, she actively participated in the deposit and withdrawal of the proceeds of a check in question. She instructed a relative to open a savings account with a bank and presented a cashier's check to the bank for deposit. She claimed that she was requested by her uncle to deposit the check, assured the bank that it would be honored, and even inquired about the credited amount on behalf of the relative. The complainant then withdrew a significant amount from the account, redeposited a smaller sum, and closed the account. The complainant also made additional withdrawals from her own savings account.

The petitioner later demanded the return of the check, threatening to file criminal charges if the demand was not met. In light of these circumstances, the petitioner's demand for the return of the check and his threat to file charges were deemed lawful. The court ruled that such threats are a common practice to enforce collection, and as long as the creditor believes it was their right to do so, it cannot be considered duress. The court also emphasized the distinction between giving consent reluctantly against one's better judgment and acting against one's will under irresistible pressure.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's actions constituted duress.

  2. Whether the complainant voluntarily consented to the acts she performed.

  3. Whether the complainant's acts were voluntary or involuntary.

  4. Whether the petitioner made a personal case out of the situation.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that the petitioner's actions did not constitute duress. It stated that the threat to detain the complainant at the bank in order to enforce collection is within the realm of the law, as long as the creditor believes it is his right to do so. The court also explained that in order for an act to be considered duress, the person must act against their will under a pressure they cannot resist. In this case, the complainant, despite her protestations, voluntarily and reluctantly consented to the acts.

  2. The court found that the complainant did voluntarily consent to the acts she performed. It noted that her lengthy stay at the bank was not due to the petitioner's threat, but rather her desire to prove her innocence. The court also highlighted that she willingly returned the money to show good faith, and it was she who informed the petitioner about the existence of the RCBC Time Deposit Certificate. The allegations of threats came from the complainant herself, and she failed to present any other witness to support her claim.

  3. The acts of the complainant were voluntary. The non-presentation of the passbook and the typewritten withdrawal slip do not automatically indicate involuntary acts. The prosecution failed to present evidence to rebut the petitioner's contention that the withdrawal slip was already prepared when the complainant signed it.

  4. The petitioner did not make a personal case out of the situation. At the time the check was deposited and encashed, the petitioner was on leave and not responsible for the bank's mistake in accepting and paying the forged check.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A threat to detain a person at a bank in order to enforce collection does not constitute duress as long as the creditor believes it is their right to do so.

  • In order for an act to be considered duress, the person must act against their will under a pressure they cannot resist.

  • The voluntary consent of a person may be present even if they act reluctantly and against their better judgment.

  • When a person's sense, judgment, and will rebel and they refuse to act as requested but are overcome by force or intimidation, a new element of duress enters. At that point, the person ceases to exist as an independent entity.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party alleging duress.

  • In banking transactions, there are exceptions to general rules, such as when a regular customer is involved.

  • The usual risks in banking business do not necessarily militate against a bank manager's efficiency.

  • Force or intimidation must be immediate and continuous, threatening great bodily harm, to be considered a valid defense for involuntary acts.

  • The presence of a companion or support does not excuse voluntary acts.

  • Coercion is the use of violence, threat, or intimidation in compelling another to do something against his or her will.

  • The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the elements of the crime and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • In determining the presence of coercion, the court considers the circumstances surrounding the alleged coerced action, such as the presence or absence of logical alternatives, the voluntary nature of the accused's actions, and the absence of any indication of submission to the coercion.