GRAVE COERCION The three elements of grave coercion are: [1] 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; [2] that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party, and [3] that the person who restrained the will 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. ---------------------In the crime of grave coercion, violence through material force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party is an essential ingredient. For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be present: 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.[43]

Admittedly, respondents padlocked the Unit and cut off the electricity, water and telephone facilities. Petitioners were thus prevented from occupying the Unit and using it for the purpose for which it was intended, that is, to be used as a law office. At the time of the padlocking and cutting off of facilities, there was already a case for the determination of the rights and obligations of both Alejandro, as lessee and OPI as lessor, pending before the MeTC. There was in fact an order for the respondents to remove the padlock. Thus, in performing the acts complained of, Amor and Aguilar had no right to do so. The problem, however, lies on the second element. A perusal of petitioners Joint Affidavit-Complaint shows that petitioners merely alleged the fact of padlocking and cutting off of facilities to prevent the petitioners from entering the Unit. For petitioners, the commission of these acts is sufficient to indict respondents of grave coercion. It was never alleged that the acts were effected by violence, threat or intimidation. Petitioners belatedly alleged that they were intimidated by the presence of security guards during the questioned incident. We find that the mere presence of the security guards is insufficient to cause intimidation to the petitioners. - JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO vs. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS - G.R. No. 179243, September 7, 2011

-----------------------------------

The petitioners appealed the judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals. They contended that the trial court's finding of grave coercion was not supported by the evidence. According to the petitioners, the town mayor had the power to order the clearance of market premises and the removal of the complainants' stall because the municipality had enacted municipal ordinances pursuant to which the market stall was a nuisance per se. The petitioners stated that the lower court erred in finding that the demolition of the complainants' stall was a violation of the very directive of the petitioner Mayor which gave the stall owners seventy two (72) hours to vacate the market premises. The petitioners questioned the imposition of prison terms of five months and one day and of accessory penalties provided by law. They also challenged the order to pay fines of P500.00 each, P10,000.00 actual and compensatory damages, P30,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00 exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit. The dispositive portion of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals states: WHEREFORE, we hereby modify the judgment appealed from in the sense that the appellants are acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt. but they are ordered to pay jointly and severally to complainants the amount of P9,600.00, as actual damages. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the acquittal of the defendants-appellants as to criminal liability results in the extinction of their civil liability. The Court of Appeals denied the motion holding that: xxx xxx xxx ... appellants' acquittal was based on reasonable doubt whether the crime of coercion was committed, not on facts that no unlawful act was committed; as their taking the law into their hands, destructing (sic) complainants' properties is unlawful, and, as evidence on record established that complainants suffered actual damages, the imposition of actual damages is correct.

-G.R. No. L-39999 May 31, 1984 ROY PADILLA, FILOMENO GALDONES, ISMAEL GONZALGO and JOSE FARLEY BEDENIA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

-------------------------------Psychological trauma PTSD is believed to be caused by experiencing any of a wide range of events[9] which produces intense negative feelings of "fear, helplessness or horror"[10] in the observer or participant.[1]Sources of such feelings may include (but are not limited to): experiencing or witnessing childhood or adult physical, emotional, or sexual abuse;[1]

experiencing or witnessing physical assault, adult experiences of sexual assault, accidents, drug addiction, illnesses, medical complications;[11] employment in occupations exposed to war (such as soldiers) or disaster (such as emergency service workers);[11] getting a diagnosis of a life-threatening illness[1]

Children or adults may develop PTSD symptoms by experiencing bullying or mobbing. [12][13] Approximately 25% of children exposed to family violence can experience PTSD. [14] Preliminary research suggests that child abuse may interact with mutations in a stress-related gene to increase the risk of PTSD in adults.[15][16][17] However, being exposed to a traumatic experience doesn't automatically indicate they will develop PTSD.[18] It has been shown that the intrusive memories, such as flashbacks, nightmares, and the memories themselves, are greater contributors to the biological and psychological dimensions of PTSD than the event itself.[19] These intrusive memories are mainly characterized by sensory episodes, rather than thoughts. People with PTSD have intrusive re-experiences of traumatic events which lack awareness of context and time. These episodes aggravate and maintain PTSD symptoms since the individual reexperiences trauma as if it was happening in the present moment.[20] Multiple studies show that parental PTSD and other posttraumatic disturbances in parental psychological functioning can, despite a traumatized parent's best efforts, interfere with their response to their child as well as their child's response to trauma.[21] [22] Parents with violence-related PTSD may, for example, inadvertently expose their children to developmentally inappropriate violent media due to their need to manage their own emotional dysregulation.[23] Clinical findings indicate that a failure to provide adequate treatment to children after they suffer a traumatic experience, depending on their vulnerability and the severity of the trauma, will ultimately lead to PTSD symptoms in adulthood.

-----------------------------------------