REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

G.R No. 181626 May 30, 2011

Santiago Paera, Petitioner,

v.s

People of the Philippines, Respondent,

Carpio, J.:

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT, petitioner is guilty of three counts of grave threats.

Facts:

As punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental, petitioner Santiago Paera

(petitioner) allocated his constituents’ use of communal water coming from a
communal tank by limiting distribution to the residents of Mampas, Bacong. The tank
sits on a land located in the neighboring barangay of Mampas, Valencia and owned by
complainant Vicente Darong (Vicente), father of complainant Indalecio Darong
(Indalecio). Despite petitioner’s scheme, Indalecio continued drawing water from the
tank. On 7 April 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of the water distribution scheme
and cut Indalecio’s access. The following day, petitioner inspected the tank after
constituents complained of water supply interruption. Petitioner discovered a tap from
the main line which he promptly disconnected. To stem the flow of water from the
ensuing leak, petitioner, using a borrowed bolo, fashioned a wooden plug. It was at this
point when Indalecio arrived. What happened next is contested by the parties.

According to the prosecution, petitioner, without any warning, picked-up his bolo and
charged towards Indalecio, shouting "Patyon tikaw!" (I will kill you!). Indalecio ran for
safety, passing along the way his wife, Diosetea Darong (Diosetea) who had followed
him to the water tank. Upon seeing petitioner, Diosetea inquired what was the matter.
Instead of replying, petitioner shouted "Wala koy gipili, bisag babaye ka, patyon
tikaw!" ("I don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you!"). Diosetea
similarly scampered and sought refuge in the nearby house of a relative. Unable to
pursue Diosetea, petitioner turned his attention back to Indalecio. As petitioner chased
Indalecio, he passed Vicente, and, recognizing the latter, repeatedly thrust his bolo
towards him, shouting "Bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!" ("Even if you are old, I
will crack open your skull!").

According to petitioner, however, it was Indalecio who threatened him with a bolo,
angrily inquiring why petitioner had severed his water connection. This left petitioner
with no choice but to take a defensive stance using the borrowed bolo, prompting
Indalecio to scamper.

Except for Vicente, who was seriously ill, the Darongs testified during trial. Petitioner
was the defense’s lone witness.

Rulings:

Yes, Santiago Paera is guilty of grave threats. The MCTC found the prosecution
evidence sufficient to prove the elements of Grave Threats under Article 282, noting
that the Darongs’ persistent water tapping contrary to Paeras directive must have
angered Paera, triggering his criminal behaviour. The MCTC rejected petitioner’s
defence of denial as self-serving and uncorroborated.

The Regional Trial Court affirmed the MCTC, sustaining the latter’s findings on
petitioner’s motive. The RTC similarly found unconvincing petitioners denial in light of
the ‘”clear, direct and consistent” testimonies of the Darong`s and other prosecution
witnesses.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

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

Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats any person who shall threaten
another with the infliction upon the person 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.

Santiago Paera’s threat to kill Indalencio and Diosetia and crack open Vicente’s skull
are wrongs amounting to homicide and serious physical injuries as penalized in
Revised Penal Code. The threats were consummated as soon as the Darongs heard
Paera said his threatening remarks.

The proof of grave threats against Vicente came from the prosecution’s evidence on
the testimonies of Indalencio and Diosetia and two witnesses who corroborated with
them indisputably shows the threat of Paera on killing Vicente. Vicente’s absence on
the stand does not affect the veracity and strength of the prosecution’s evidence.

There is no justifying circumstances attended on Paera’s commission of grave threats.

His claim of defence of a stranger under rule number 3 of Article 11 of the RPC which
negates the criminal liability of “anyone who acts in defence of his persons or rights of
a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites in the next preceding
circumstance are present and the person defending be not induced by resentment,
revenge or any other evil motives” which requires 1. Unlawful aggression 2.
Reasonable necessity of means to avoid or repeal it and 3. Lack of provocation on the
part of the person being attacked. None of this requisites was obtained. This claim of
Paera has no merit on having acted to protect and defend the water rights of his
constituents in the lawful exercise of his office as punong barangay.

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or exercise of office under Article 11

paragraph 5 lies upon a proof the offense was committed was the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of office. When
Paera barred the Darong’s access to communal water, arguably, he acted in the
performance of his duty to ensure the delivery of basic services. But he excessively
exceeded the bounds of his office when he chased the Darong’s with a bladed weapon,
threatening harm on their persons for violation on his orders.

The Supreme Court denied the petition of Santiago Paera and affirms the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete, Branch 39 dated November 28, 2008.

  
 For a criminal act to be considered as GRAVE THREAT the requisites should be

 1. Unlawful aggression
 2. Reasonable necessity of means to avoid or repeal it
 3. Lack of provocation on the part of the person being attacked

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

MANILA

G.R No. 183563 December 14, 2011

People of the Philippines, Respondent, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.s

Henry Arpon y Juntilla, Accused-Appellant

Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Issue/s:

WHETHER