Skip to main content

GRAVE THREATS

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 degrees shall be imposed.

If the threat 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 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
In the case of  SANTIAGO PAERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011, the Supreme Court said;

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 petitioner’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 petitioner utter his threatening remarks. Having spoken the threats at different points in time to these three individuals, albeit in rapid succession, petitioner incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

Petitioner’s theory fusing his liability to one count of Grave Threats because he only had "a single mental resolution, a single impulse, and single intent" to threaten the Darongs assumes a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente’s presence near the water tank in the morning of 8 April 1999. The records, however, belie this assumption. Thus, in the case of Indalecio, petitioner was as much surprised to see Indalecio as the latter was in seeing petitioner when they chanced upon each other near the water tank. Similarly, petitioner came across Diosetea as he was chasing Indalecio who had scampered for safety. Lastly, petitioner crossed paths with Vicente while running after Indalecio. Indeed, petitioner went to the water tank not to execute his "single intent" to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap. Not having known in advance of the Darongs’ presence near the water tank at the time in question, petitioner could not have formed any intent to threaten any of them until shortly before he inadvertently came across each of them.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 318 OF RPC

1. MARIA C. OSORIO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 207711, JULY 02,  For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must exist: (a) [The accused makes a] false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in [Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered damage or prejudice. (Citation omitted) All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case. Petitioner, in soliciting private complainant's money, falsely represented that it would be invested in Philam Life and that its proceeds would be used to pay for private complainant's insurance premiums. This false representation is what induced private complainant to part with her funds and disregard the payment of her insurance premiums. Sinc...
Post a Comment
Read more

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

JAYLORD DIMAL AND ALLAN CASTILLO,   v.   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,  G.R. No. 216922, April 18, 2018. With respect to the items under Return on the Search Warrant indicated as "articles recovered/seized in plain view during the conduct of the search ," it is well settled that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. For the "plain view doctrine" to apply, it is required that the following requisites are present: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. As explained in  People v. Salanguit ...
Post a Comment
Read more