SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233818. September 2, 2020.]
ROLANDO NAVEA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233818 (Rolando Navea v. People of the Philippines). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the January 13, 2017 Decision 2 and the August 1, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38446 for failure of petitioner Rolando Navea (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Grave Threats and Grave Coercion, defined and penalized under Articles 282 and 286 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively. However, the penalties imposed are modified as follows: (a) for the crime of Grave Threats, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, and to pay a fine of P500.00; and (b) for the crime of Grave Coercion, petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years and six (6) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00. 4
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements 5 of the crime of Grave Threats, considering that petitioner threatened to kill private complainant Honorato Navea (Navea) while holding a knife, and the threat was not subject to a condition. Likewise, all the elements 6 of the crime of Grave Coercion had been established, in light of petitioner's act of preventing Navea from entering the latter's own bodega, while also holding a fan knife. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses and probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions based on these factual findings, are to be given the highest respect, 7 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-33.
2.Id. at 40-49. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 51-55.
4. See Consulta v. People, 598 Phil. 464-473 (2009).
5. The elements of Grave Threats are as follows: (1) that the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter's person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter's family, of any wrong; (2) that such wrong amounts to a crime; and (3) that the threat was not subject to a condition. This felony is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened (See rollo, p. 46. See also Paera v. People, 664 Phil. 630-641 [2011]).
6. The elements of Grave Coercion 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. (Navarra v. Office of the Ombudsman, 622 Phil. 376-387 [2009]).
7.Jamaca v. People, 764 Phil. 683, 694 (2015).