Timonervs. People Mayor fenced public nuisance. Abatement of public nuisance without judicial proceedings, municipal mayornot criminally liablewhenheactedingoodfaithin authorizingthe fencing ofabarbershopfor beingapublic nuisance because itoccupied a portionofthe sidewalk.Art 699authorizes the abatement of a public nuisance withoutjudicialproceedings. Grave coercion is committed when a person who without authority of law, shall by means ofviolence,preventanotherfromdoing something not prohibited by law orcompel to do something against his will either it be right or wrong. Elements:a. That any personbe prevented byanother from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against hiswill, be it right or wrong.b. Thatthepreventionorcompulsionbe effected by violence, either by material forceorsuchdisplayofitaswouldproduceintimidationandcontrolthewillofthe offended partyc. That the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had noright 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.

Facts: The Court of Appeals found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Grave Coercion penalized under Art. 286 of the Revised PenalCode.Thepetitionerwasthemayorof atown and bythe recommendationoftheMunicipalHealthOfficer,hebarricadedsome establishments and stalls which protruded into the sidewalk of the Maharlika highway andwho werenot complying withcertainhealthand sanitation requirement. The petitioner then filed a complaint against the owners of thestalls saying that these stalls constituted public nuisance as well as nuisance per se.The owners of the stalls charged thepetitioner with the offense ofgrave coercion.Issue:W/N the conviction of the court of appeals that the petitioner committed grave coercion is correct the complainants were public nuisance.Decision:The court is in agreement that the complainants were public nuisance for affecting a considerable number of persons in their neighbourhood. Petitioner,asmayorofthetown,merelyimplementedtheaforesaidrecommendation of the Municipal Health Officer. Having then acted in goodfaith in the performanceof his duty, petitioner incurred no criminal liability. Grave coercion is committed when "a person who, without authority of law, shallbymeansofviolence,preventanotherfromdoingsomethingnotprohibited by law or compel to do something against his will, either it be right or wrong." The third element being absent in the case at bar, petitioner cannot be held guilty of grave coercion.