I.

INTRODUCTION
(Background of the case)
ROAD HAZARDS have diversified. From the common perils drivers are
accustomed to constantly keep eyes on, such are roads undergoing construction in
seeming perpetuity and pesky undisciplined tricycle drivers refusing to drive on the
outer lanes of long, open highways, motorists and pedestrians alike have increasingly
been terrified of incidences of road rage. Drivers have become more aggressive on
roads and in traffic for several years. This phenomenon has become one of the top
issues that often leads to vehicle accidents, if not crimes. Outbursts of violent behavior
have become commonplace in traffic jams and in rush hour.
Adding yet again to the footnotes of road rage is this case of grave threat
involving accused Jaime Dilan, Jr. (Jaime), who drew a gun and threatened
complainants Greggy Agaton (Greggy) and Alyssa Zaragoza (Alyssa) during a road
spat. A more detailed narration of the incident is as follows:
“That about 11:59 o’clock in the evening of June 9, 2018, along
the road of Brgy. Carriedo, in the municipality of Tayug, province of
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, threaten GREGGY R. AGATON and
ALYSSA S. ZARAGOZA with a wrong amounting to a crime by
poking his firearm towards them and by saying “PAPATAYIN KO
KAYO,” which caused so much fear of their life, to their damage and
prejudice.
Contrary to Art. 282 No. 2 of the Revised Penal Code in relation
to R.A. 10951.”1

When the above statements were read to accused at his arraignment, he pleaded
“Not Guilty.”2 In the same hearing, the parties had the pre-trial conference whereupon
the following facts were admitted: (1) the identity of accused as arraigned; and (2) the
due execution of the police blotter extract dated June 10, 2018 with qualification that
the policeman who caused the entry and/or conducted investigation are not
eyewitnesses thereon. After also marking their respective documentary evidence and
naming witnesses, trial commenced.
Prosecution evidence consisted of the testimonies of private complainants and
witness PMSg Geoffrey Marcadejas. Accused, on the other hand, exhausted all trial
dates given without him appearing to testify or present exculpating evidence. Hence,
the case was submitted for decision with only prosecution evidence to consider in
resolving the issue—whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of grave threat.
1
Amended Information dated January 25, 2019, records, p. 1
2
Order dated May 7, 2019, records, p. 32
 The court convicts.

II. Arguments

Consistently in their Joint Affidavit of Complaint 3 and direct testimonies, private

complainants Greggy and Alyssa named accused Jaime Dilan, Jr. as the person who
threatened them by uttering the words “Papatayin ko kayo” and pointing a short firearm at
them. The incident happened at 11:59 p.m. of June 9, 2018. The private complainants were
on board their vehicle with Greggy on the wheel. As the vehicle was to pass thru a single
lane of that portion of road undergoing construction at barangay Carriedo, Tayug,
Pangasinan, it momentarily stopped to await its turn. Suddenly, the vehicle driven by
accused described as gray Hyundai Starex van with markings “DELTANS” and plate number
BDW came fast approaching that it almost clashed with the vehicle of private complainants
head on. The accused then chided Greggy, “Masyado kang nerbyoso” (You are too scared).
This angered Greggy resulting into a spat. Accused then drew out a short firearm, aimed it at
the private complainants, and uttered the words: “Papatayin ko kayo”. Alyssa, who turned
panicky, pleaded at accused not to shoot them, and clamoured at Greggy to just drive away.
They then reported the incident to PNP Tayug Station, where it was blottered as entry no.
9814. Accused was identified to be Jaime Dilan, Jr. and his address was likewise known to be
at barangay Poblacion West, Natividad, Pangasinan. With these information at hand, PNP
Tayug coordinated with PNP Natividad for the conduct of hot pursuit operation that ended
with the apprehension of the accused, which was also reported in the blotter as entry no. 982. 5
Both complainants claimed to have suffered from anxiety and phobia over their experience.
Further elucidation of the incident came about on cross-examination of Greggy. It
came to light that a similar case was previously filed before Branch 52 of the Regional Trial
Court of Tayug, Pangasinan docketed as Criminal Case No. T-6986 for Grave Threats with
the Use of Firearms. It was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and refiled before this court on
amended information. Hence, it was second time for Greggy to testify on the subject
incident, and several of his previous statements laid the bases for cross-examination. He
admitted that he was the first to react by uttering these words to the accused: “gago ka,
muntik mo na ako banggain.” (You fool! You almost collided with me). Also admitted is the
fact that before the encounter it was the vehicle of the accused who first entered the one-way
lane. Greggy, however, denied that he likewise entered the lane pitting his vehicle in a near
collision with that of accused’s.6
As for the description of the gun, Greggy, a licensed firearm holder, likened what he
saw from accused to that of caliber 45 pistol. In the police report, he did not mention the
similarity to caliber 45 pistol because he was unsure about the firearm. When inquired about

3
Exhibit B, records, p. 7
4
Exhibit C, records, p. 8
5
Ibid
6
TSN dated September 3, 2019, pp. 11-14
the lighting condition at the time of the incident, he agreed that there was no street light. The
cabin light of accused’s vehicle was likewise off, and it was dark inside.7
On redirect examination, Greggy explained that even in the absence of street light and
the cabin light of accused’s vehicle, from the light coming from the dashboard, the headlights
of the vehicle, and those used by the nearby construction, he could make out the appearance
of a short firearm. At the police station, the accused was identified and his address known
from information by Alyssa’s brother and sister-in-law who knew accused personally. It
was the relatives of Alyssa who provided assistance to PNP Tayug and Natividad in locating
the accused.
Corroboration of the testimony relative to incidences taken up at the police station and
the ensuing operation that culminated into the arrest of the accused was provided for by
PMSg Marcadejas.
Uncontested, the above narration of facts evinced guilt of the accused in committing
grave threat against the private complainant. Even after rigid cross-examination by the public
defender, the prosecution is able to establish the elements of the felony, namely: (1) that the
offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong; (2) that
such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the threat was not subject to a condition.8
As if drawing a weapon and aiming it at another during an altercation is not
threatening enough, announcing your intention by shouting “Papatayin ko kayo!”—which is
doubtless criminal—places the intimidation to the level of grave. When Greggy and Alyssa
heard such utterance from the accused coupled with what they perceived as appearance of a
short firearm pointed at them, the felony was consummated. In Paera vs. People9, it was
held that "as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened" 10 the crime
of grave threat is committed. The two vehicles were paralleled on a standstill, windows
down, which set up the exchange of heated words, culminating into the commission of grave
threat by the accused. Without getting into the merits who had the right of way immediately
before the incident happened, at the ensuing altercation between the drivers when each made
a case that he was in the right, there is no justifying the act of pointing a gun at the other party
and threatening to kill them. Even assuming that it was Greggy who encroached on the
accused’s turn of passage thru the one-way lane and risked the collision between the vehicles,
he could have just expressed his indignation in a manner not contrary to law. Indeed, as often
mentioned and proved in this case, losing your temper may land you in jail.
Amid this avalanche of evidence, accused was nowhere during the trial. Although
presumed innocent even without offering countervailing evidence, it is not perpetual and
absolute. When overturned by inculpatory evidence, it behoves upon him to expose the flaws
in the prosecution evidence and amplify reasonable doubt to benefit him, something which he
aggressively pursued in the earlier case against him. Accused even demurred the prosecution
evidence and the case was dismissed but for lack of jurisdiction. Relevant documents from
the earlier dismissed case were in fact marked as defense evidence. However, as these were

7
Ibid, pp. 18-19
8
Article 282, par. 2, Revised Penal Code
9
G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011
10
Ibid, citing People v. Villanueva, Nos. 3133-3144-R, 27 February 1950, 48 O.G. 1376 (No. 4), 1381.
not duly authenticated and formally offered for admission, the court cannot assign them any
probative value. The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial matter. Failure to make a
formal offer within a considerable period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit it.
Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not been offered shall be excluded and
rejected.11
Accused nevertheless was defended valiantly by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO),
who adroitly introduced into record and body of evidence the previous testimony of private
complainant Greggy in Crim. Case No. T-6986 by eliciting it thru cross-examination
questions. Such defensive maneuver established points which the court can appreciate in
fixing the penalty. On witness stand, Greggy affirmed his earlier account that he was first to
berate the accused after the latter’s vehicle almost collided with his, which was not supposed
to happen if either of them gave way for the other to pass. However, there was that
admission too that the accused was first to enter the lane earning him priority to traverse that
narrow one-way lane, and supposedly obliging the complainant to await his turn. This irked
Greggy who expressed his displeasure by pulling the window of the vehicle down and calling
the accused “Gago!” Any driver who believes he has the right of way to be called that would
fume at both ears. But it is not impossible to react strongly without blowing your top, going
all-out offensive, and landing yourself in jail. The court, however, is not dismissive of what
impelled accused to lose his temper and have fleeting lapse of judgment. Consumed by
passion that diminished his reasonableness to act and/or react under the circumstance, he
committed the crime to which this court is convicting him of. But in fixing the penalty, the
court too will consider the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation in his favour.
The requisites of this mitigating circumstance are: (1) that there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) said act which produced the
obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. 12 Deeply
aggrieved at what he heard from complainant, the impulse was to display it with the greatest
impact by pointing his gun at his tormentor and threatening to kill them. As is often done, the
court can reduce the penalty “because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power.”13 Accordingly, appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the proper penalty is anywhere within the minimum
period of arresto mayor, which is one (1) month and one (1) day to two (2) months, in
addition to fine which must not exceed one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00).14
Corollary to the criminal liability, accused is to indemnify the private complainants moral
damages in the amount of five thousand pesos (Php5,000.00) each.

III. Conclusion and Findings

WHEREFORE, having proved his GUILT beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
Grave Threat under Article 282, Par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code and appreciating the
11
Heirs of Pasag, et. al. vs. Sps. Parocha, et. al., G.R. No. 155483, April 27, 2007
12
Tangan v. People, G.R. No. 105830, February 23, 2001.
13
United States v. Salandanan, et al., 1 Phil. 464, 465 (1902). 
14
R.A. 10951, Section 70 amending Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, accused Jaime Dilan, Jr. y Lamigo is
hereby sentenced the penalty of straight imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day of Arresto
Mayor in its minimum period, and to pay the fine of twenty thousand pesos (Php20,000.00)
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. As civil indemnity for moral damages,
accused is to pay private complainants Greggy R. Agaton and Alyssa S. Zaragosa the sum of
Php5,000.00 each, which shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from date of
finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.