May 18, 2023
werewolf lovin
seen from Colombia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Germany
seen from Canada
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Colombia
seen from Canada
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
werewolf lovin
werewolf lovin
TIMONER VS. PEOPLE ET. AL. - NOVEMBER 25, 1983 (G.R. NO. L-62050)
FACTS: Jose Timoner, the petitioner, was convicted by the Municipal Court of Daet with the crime of Grave Coercion, as penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, because of the complaint by Pascual Dayaon, Lourdes Rabustillos and others. Timoner, then Mayor of Daet, together with two uniformed policemen, Samuel Morena and Ernesto Quibral, and six laborers, was acting on the recommendation of Dra. Allegre, the Municipal Health Officer, to close among other structures that were along the sidewalk, the barbershop of Dayaon and store of Rabustillos. Timoner filed a complaint in the CFI of Camarines Norte against Rebustillos and others for judicial abatement of their stalls, alleged that the stalls constituted public nuisances as well as per se. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which was the Intermediate Appellate Court then, however, the CA affirmed in full the judgment of the trial court. Petitioner claimed that their actions was done in abatement of a public nuisance and, therefore, under lawful authority.
ISSUES: Whether or not Timoner committed Grave Coercion. Whether or not the structures among the sidewalk are constituted as public nuisances, and nuisances per se. Whether or not Timoner was within his authority to close the structures.
HELD: The petitioner was acquitted of the crime charged. He did not commit Grave Coercon as the elements of Grave Coercion required that he acted not under the authority of the law. As the then Mayor of the City, Timoner had the authority to act on behalf of the recommendation and his constituents' right to public order and safety, and that such stalls along the sidewalk affected the community and general public, as it is in a public place, and was annoying to all who come within its sphere. The Supreme Court did contend that the barbershop did constitute a public nuisance, as defined under Article 694 and 695 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Furthermore, it had been recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer.