Grave threats, A282 Revised Penal Code

1. Concept

Grave threats – refers to the crime of threatening another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

a. Legal basis

Art. 282. Grave threats. – Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two (2) degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition. (As amended by R.A. 10951)

Article 284. Bond for good behavior. – In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles [Articles 282 and 283], the person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.

(Revised Penal Code)

b. Actus reus and mens rea

Like any other crime defined by The Revised Penal Code, grave threats must have an actus reus and mens rea. The actus reus is the actual speaking or uttering of the threats of, say, death or serious bodily harm. The mens rea is that the accused intends that the recipient of their words to feel intimidated by their words or that the accused intended the words to be taken seriously. The words must be meant by the accused to convey a threat; in other words, the utterance is meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. It is not necessary that the recipient themself actually feels intimidated or actually takes the words seriously. To repeat, all that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect. (Garma v. People, G.R. No. 248317, March 16, 2022, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.)

1) Mens rea

The test of mens rea is whether a reasonable person would consider the utterance as threats by regarding the utterance objectively and reviewing it in light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which they were spoken, the person to whom they were addressed, the relationship between the accused and the complainant, and the recipient’s reaction to the accused’s words. All these and other factual details form part of the context and circumstances surrounding the crime. But whether the recipient of a threat takes the threat seriously is not, in and of itself, an element of the mens rea of the accused, though it is relevant to the extent that it assists in understanding the accused’s intention in speaking the words at issue. (Garma v. People [2022], supra.)

[That the] accused intended the utterance to intimidate the complainant or be taken seriously by the latter; whether the complainant was actually intimidated or took the threat seriously is not part of the mens rea. (Garma v. People [2022], supra.)

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) When the infliction of the threat upon the person, honor or property, or the family of a person is coupled with condition; or

2) When the alleged threatening act or remark is not subject to a condition. (Garma v. People [2022], supra.)

Caluag v. People ruled that in grave threats, the wrong threatened which amounts to a crime may or may not be accompanied by a condition. (Garma v. People [2022], supra.)

a. Mode 1: Grave threats with a condition

Elements of the crime of grave threats with a condition:

1) That the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon their person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of any wrong;

2) Such wrong amounted to a crime; and

3) The threat was subject to a condition.  (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 282(Garma v. People [2022], supra.))

1) Element 1: Threat

For the 1^st element, That the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon their person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of any wrong.

2) Element 2: Wrong amounts to a crime

For the 2^nd element, such wrong amounted to a crime.

3) Element 3: Threat subject to a condition

For the 3^rd element, the threat was subject to a condition.

b. Mode 2: Grave threats without a condition

Elements of the crime of grave threats without a condition:

1) That the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon their person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of any wrong;

2) Such wrong amounted to a crime; and

3) The threat was not subject to a condition.  (Garma v. People, G.R. No. 248317, March 16, 2022, Per Lazaro-Javier, J.)

1) Element 1: Threat

For the 1^st element, the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon their person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of any wrong.

People v. Azurin, G.R. No. 249322, September 14, 2021, Per Caguioa, J.:

• From the records, the prosecution was able to prove his guilt for Grave Threats (without a condition) beyond reasonable doubt.

• Applying these parameters to the instant case, it is evident that Azurin’ s threats to kill Clave are wrongs amounting to the crime of either homicide or murder. The crime was consummated as soon as Clave heard of the threats during their telephone conversation.

a) Consummated as soon as victim hears

[T]he crime [of grave threats is] consummated as soon as the victim heard [the accused] utter his threatening remarks. Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats, “any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime[.]” The crime is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened. (People v. Bueza, G.R. No. 242513, November 18, 2020, Per Hernando, J.)

Reyes v. People, En Banc, G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969, Per Makalintal, J.:

• [The Accused] herein, Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City, whose services were terminated on May 6, 1961. In the afternoon of June 6, 1961, he led a group of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point. They carried placards bearing statements such as, “Agustin, mamatay ka;” “To, alla boss con Nolan;” “Frank do not be a common funk;” “Agustin, mamamatay ka rin”; “Agustin, Nolan for you;” “Agustin alla bos con Nolan;” “Agustin, dillega, el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting;” and others. The base commander, Capt. McAllister, called up Col. Patricia Monzon, who as Philippine Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was in charge of preserving harmonious relations between personnel of the naval station and the civilian population of Cavite City. Capt. McAllister requested Col. Monzon to join him at the main gate of the base to meet the demonstrators. Col. Monzon went to the place and talked to Rosauro Reyes and one Luis Buenaventura upon learning that the demonstration was not directed against the naval station but against Agustin Hallare and a certain Frank Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal of Rosauro Reyes from the Navy Exchange, Col. Monzon suggested to them to demonstrate in front of Hallare’s residence, but they told him that they would like the people in the station to know how they felt about Hallare and Nolan. They assured him, however, that they did not intend to use violence, as “they just wanted to blow off steam.”

• At that time Agustin Hallare was in his office inside the naval station. When he learned about the demonstration he became apprehensive about his safety, so he sought Col. Monzon’s protection. The colonel thereupon escorted Hallare, his brother, and another person in going out of the station, using his (Monzon’s) car for the purpose. Once outside, Col. Monzon purpose slowed down to accommodate the request of Reyes. He told Hallare to take a good look at the demonstrators and at the placards they were carrying. When the demonstrators saw Hallare they shouted, “Mabuhay si Agustin.” Then they boarded their jeeps and followed the car. One jeep overtook passed the car while the other to led behind. After Hallare and his companions had alighted in front of his residence at 967 Burgos St., Cavite City, Col. Monzon sped away.

• The three jeeps carrying the demonstrators parked in front of Hallare’s residence after having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself at the gate, and with his right hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he shouted repeatedly, “Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita.” Thereafter, he boarded his jeep and the motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile, Hallare, frightened by the demeanor of Reyes and the other demonstrators, stayed inside the house.

• The demonstration led by [the Accused] Agustin Hallare in front of the main gate of the naval station; the fact that placards with threatening statements were carried by the demonstrators; their persistence in trailing Hallare in a motorcade up to his residence; and the demonstration conducted in front thereof, culminating in repeated threats flung by [the Accused] in a loud voice, give rise to only one conclusion: that the threats were made “with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect.” Indeed, Hallare became so apprehensive of his safety that he sought the protection of Col. Monzon, who had to escort him home, wherein he stayed while the demonstration was going on. It cannot be denied that the threats were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger, motivated as they were by the dismissal of [the Accused] one month before the incident. We, therefore, hold that the appellate court was correct in upholding [the Accused]’s conviction for the offense of grave threats.

b) Separate counts for each grave threat

Paera v. People, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011, Per Carpio, J.:

• To limit his liability to one count of Grave Threats (from three counts), [the Accused] tries to fit the facts of the case to the concept of “continued crime”” (delito continuado) which envisages a single crime committed through a series of acts arising from one criminal intent or resolution. To fix the penalty for his supposed single continued crime, [the Accused]invokes the rule for complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC imposing the penalty for the most serious crime, applied in its maximum period.

The nature of the crime of Grave Threats and the proper application of the concepts of continued and complex crimes preclude the adoption of [the Accused]’s theory.

Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats “any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person x x x of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime[.]” This felony is consummated “as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.”

Applying these parameters, it is clear that [the Accused]’s threat to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente’s skull are wrongs on the person amounting to (at the very least) homicide and serious physical injuries as penalized under the RPC. These threats were consummated as soon as Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente heard [the Accused] utter his threatening remarks. Having spoken the threats at different points in time to these three individuals, albeit in rapid succession, [the Accused] incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

2) Element 2: Wrong amounts to a crime

For the 2^nd element, such wrong amounted to a crime.

People v. Bueza, G.R. No. 242513, November 18, 2020, Per Hernando, J.:

• In this case, it is clear that accused-appellant’s threat to kill the private complainant is a wrong on the person amounting to, at the very least, homicide under the RPC. The felony of Grave Threats was consummated the moment she heard Bueza utter his threatening remarks. The appellate court correctly ruled that it was inconsequential that the threat was made in the presence of a number of people since the offense does not require that it be committed in private.

3) Element 3: Threat subject to a condition

For the 3^rd element, the threat was not subject to a condition.

Reyes v. People, En Banc, G.R. Nos. L-21528 and L-21529, March 28, 1969, Per Makalintal, J.:

• The petitioner herein, Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City, whose services were terminated on May 6, 1961. In the afternoon of June 6, 1961, he led a group of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point. They carried placards bearing statements such as, “Agustin, mamatay ka;” “To, alla boss con Nolan;” “Frank do not be a common funk;” “Agustin, mamamatay ka rin”; “Agustin, Nolan for you;” “Agustin alla bos con Nolan;” “Agustin, dillega, el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting;” and others. The base commander, Capt. McAllister, called up Col. Patricia Monzon, who as Philippine Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was in charge of preserving harmonious relations between personnel of the naval station and the civilian population of Cavite City. Capt. McAllister requested Col. Monzon to join him at the main gate of the base to meet the demonstrators. Col. Monzon went to the place and talked to Rosauro Reyes and one Luis Buenaventura upon learning that the demonstration was not directed against the naval station but against Agustin Hallare and a certain Frank Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal of Rosauro Reyes from the Navy Exchange, Col. Monzon suggested to them to demonstrate in front of Hallare’s residence, but they told him that they would like the people in the station to know how they felt about Hallare and Nolan. They assured him, however, that they did not intend to use violence, as “they just wanted to blow off steam.”

• At that time Agustin Hallare was in his office inside the naval station. When he learned about the demonstration he became apprehensive about his safety, so he sought Col. Monzon’s protection. The colonel thereupon escorted Hallare, his brother, and another person in going out of the station, using his (Monzon’s) car for the purpose. Once outside, Col. Monzon purpose slowed down to accommodate the request of Reyes. He told Hallare to take a good look at the demonstrators and at the placards they were carrying. When the demonstrators saw Hallare they shouted, “Mabuhay si Agustin.” Then they boarded their jeeps and followed the car. One jeep overtook passed the car while the other to led behind. After Hallare and his companions had alighted in front of his residence at 967 Burgos St., Cavite City, Col. Monzon sped away.

• The three jeeps carrying the demonstrators parked in front of Hallare’s residence after having gone by it twice Rosauro Reyes got off his jeep and posted himself at the gate, and with his right hand inside his pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he shouted repeatedly, “Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita.” Thereafter, he boarded his jeep and the motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile, Hallare, frightened by the demeanor of Reyes and the other demonstrators, stayed inside the house.

• The demonstration led by petitioner Agustin Hallare in front of the main gate of the naval station; the fact that placards with threatening statements were carried by the demonstrators; their persistence in trailing Hallare in a motorcade up to his residence; and the demonstration conducted in front thereof, culminating in repeated threats flung by petitioner in a loud voice, give rise to only one conclusion: that the threats were made “with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat would be carried into effect.” 2 Indeed, Hallare became so apprehensive of his safety that he sought the protection of Col. Monzon, who had to escort him home, wherein he stayed while the demonstration was going on. It cannot be denied that the threats were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger, motivated as they were by the dismissal of petitioner one month before the incident. We, therefore, hold that the appellate court was correct in upholding petitioner’s conviction for the offense of grave threats.

3. Distinguish from other offenses

This offense is distinguished from other offenses or crimes below.

a. Grave threats vs Light threats

Under the Revised Penal Code, there are three kinds of threats: grave threats (Article 282), light threats (Article 283) and other light threats (Article 285). (Caluag v. People, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009, Per Quisumbing, J.)

In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a condition. Caluag v. People [2009], supra.)

b. Grave threats vs Other light threats

In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition… In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime and there is no condition. (Caluag v. People [2009], supra.)

Caluag v. People, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009, Per Quisumbing, J.:

• The records show that at around 7:30 in the evening, Julia Denido left her house to go to the barangay hall to report the mauling of her husband which she witnessed earlier at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. On her way there, petitioner confronted her and pointed a gun to her forehead, while at the same time saying “Saan ka pupunta, gusto mo ito?” Considering what transpired earlier between petitioner and Julia’s husband, petitioner’s act of pointing a gun at Julia’s forehead clearly enounces a threat to kill or to inflict serious physical injury on her person. Actions speak louder than words. Taken in the context of the surrounding circumstances, the uttered words do not go against the threat to kill or to inflict serious injury evinced by petitioner’s accompanying act.

• Given the surrounding circumstances, the offense committed falls under Article 282, par. 2 (grave threats) since: (1) killing or shooting someone amounts to a crime, and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to a condition.

• Article 285, par. 1 (other light threats) is inapplicable although it specifically states, “shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel”, since it presupposes that the threat to commit a wrong will not constitute a crime. That the threat to commit a wrong will constitute or not constitute a crime is the distinguishing factor between grave threats on one hand, and light and other light threats on the other.

References

• Title IX – Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code, as amended

—

/Updated: November 23, 2023