Grave threats, A282 Revised Penal

Code
Posted onJanuary 18, 2023Updated onNovember 23, 2023

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 1st 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 2nd element, such wrong amounted to a crime.

3) Element 3: Threat subject to a condition

For the 3rd 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 1st 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 2nd 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 3rd 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

Factors Grave threats light threats

Offended
Any person Any person
Party

Offender Any person Any person

Offender threatens another but the wrong threatened Offender threatens another but the wrong
Overt Acts amounts to a crime which may or may not be threatened does not amount to a crime but i
accompanied by a condition. always accompanied by a condition
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

Factors Grave threats Other light threats

Offended
Any person Any person
Party

Offender Any person Any person

Overt Acts Offender threatens another but the wrong threatened Offender threatens another but the wro
 amounts to a crime which may or may not be threatened does not amount to a crime
accompanied by a condition. there is no condition.
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