CRIMINAL CASE INDICTMENT : GRAVE THREATS ( 起訴状):文字おこし

The issues having been Joined the resolution.

From the fact of the case, it appears to this office that the proper offense to be charge against Genki and Hiroto is Grave Coercion by compelling Ayako by mean of violence to do something against her will whether it be right or wrong.

in coercion, the threatened harm is immediate and impending in a the offender threatens to commit is in the future.

“in the case under consideration, there was an actual or imminent force or violence exerted by Genki and Hiroto upon the complainant

when they allegedly threatened to kill her by slitting her throat if she refuses to sign the check which the respondents were bringing with them at that very moment.

there are two ways of committing grave coercion:

1.By preventing another by means of violence from doing something not prohibited by law

2.By compelling another by means of violence to do something against his will whether it be right or wrong

The present case partakes of the second way of committing coercion, that is coercion by compulsion its elements are

1. That a person compelled another to do something against his will be it right or wrong

2. that the compulsion be effected by violence, either by material force or such a display of force as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party;

3. that the parson that restrained the will and liberty of another neither has the authority of law nor the right to do so.

The element of the crime are established by the complainant and her witness.

There is reasonable ground to believe that Genki and Hiroto in conspiracy with each other and without authority of law probably employed violence or intimidation to compel Ayako to sign the checks on two different occasions on January 21 and February 5,2017.

Thus, a basis to hold them for trial for two count of  Coercion.

while it appears that Genki and Hiroto failed to attain their objective of securing the signature of Ayako during the alleged incident on January 21 2017. they can still be held liable for consummated coercion apply the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the old case of people vs. Punzalan (99 phil. 259).

“Moreover, their denial and alibi that they were on some other place during the alleged incident pales

in comparison to the positive assertions of Ayako and witnesses –  Marrelyn L. Librea and Rosario P Canillo -especially the latter of the two claims to speak and understand Nippongo.”

it is well-settled that denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive identification.

As to the alleged exchange of messages between Genki and Ayako Presented by respondents to show

that is was Ayako who asked them to come over to her house on Febraury 5,2017,

this office finds that the messages failed to controvert the allegations of the complainant that they compelled her to sign the check by means of violence or intimidation. “

the alleged exchange of 2017. Nonetheless, granting that the messages relate to the incident on February 5 2017 which is the subject of the complaint, the messages refer to the conversation between Ayako and Genki immediately prior to the incident when the alleged coercion took place and not on the actual incident itself.

“the alleged exchange of messages appear to have happened on Febraualy 2018 and not on February2017.

Nonetheless, granting that the messages relate to the incident on February 5 2017 which is the subject of the complaint, the messages refer to the conversation between Ayako and Genki immediately prior to the incident when the alleged coercion took place and not on the actual incident itself.

This office also will not take against the complainant her failure to report the incidents to the police authorities.  it is settled in jurisprudence that a delay or vacillation in the reporting of a crime is not an indication of prevarication and will not necessarily impair the credibility of the testimony of a prosecution witness.

As to the allegation of the complainant that Hiroshi was the mastermind behind the crimes committed by Genki and Hiroto,  this office find that such allegation is not well supported by the evidence.

The complainant merely drew that conclusion from the  utterances by Genki and Hiroto during those times that they compelled her to sign the checks. However, this borders on hearsay evidence which is inadmissible as evidence in court during trial.

Notwithstanding the conflicting versions of Ayako Sasaki and Hiroshi Yamanaka about their exchange of on-line messages,

this Office find reasonable ground to believe that Hiroshi Yamanaka probably threatened to kill Ayako – a threat amounting to the crime of Homicide.

The threat to kill was made subject to condition that Ayako return to Japan. This can be discerned from Horoshi’s message to Ayako on January 20,1017.

Other that the bare allegation of Ayako,

however is no evidence that Hiroshi has attained his purpose of scaring Ayako back to Japan.

in fact, it is apparent from Ayako’s complain that she is still residing in Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines.

Thus, there is prima facie evidence to indict Hiroshi for Grave Threats under the first paragraph of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.

Any person who shall threatens another with the infliction upon, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime shall be guilty of Grave Threats.

The crime which is penalized by reclusion temporal.

Since Hiroshi failed to attain his purpose,  the penalty lower by two degrees from reclusion temporal-  prision  correccional – shall be imposed.

Nonetheless ,the threat to kill made with the use of  informantion and communication technology which makes the crime covers within the ambit of Republic Act No.10175 otherwise known as the ” Cybercrime prevention Act of Revised penal Code and Special Lows, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communication technologies are considered cybercrime offenses.

As such, the threat probably committed by Hiroshi, shall be penalized by one degree higher that provided by the Revised Penal Code. Hence, in this particular case, the penalty imposable shall be raised to prison mayor.

It must be considered, however, that a finding of probable cause is not a pronouncement of guilt but merely binds over the respondents to trial.

The findings of this office are merely limited on the probability, and not on the certainty, that Genki and Hiroto coerced Ayako to sign the checks on two separate occasions on January 21 2017 and February 5 2017 and that Hiroshi threatened to kill Ayako with the use of information and communication technology on January 20 2017

wherefore, finding the existence of a probable cause, it is recommended that Genki and Hiroto be charged in count for two counts of GRAVE COERCION in conspiracy with each other.

it is further recommended that Hiroshi be charged in court for GRAVE THREATS under paragraph of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 10175 otherwise known as the” Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s