The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that non-verbal gestures may constitute grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but prosecutors must prove that the accused deliberately intended and persisted in carrying out the threat. 

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Third Division granted the petition of Belgian national Gregory Israel and reversed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA), Regional Trial Court (RTC), and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which had convicted him of grave threats over hand gestures allegedly interpreted as threats to shoot and behead a complainant.

“Without proof that the offender persisted in the idea of the threat, the mens rea for Grave Threats under Article 282 is lacking,” the SC said.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a dispute between Israel and Belgian nationals Christine Helena Annanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville, who had hired him for a construction project in Panglao, Bohol. After disagreements over alleged defects, the complainants filed a civil damages case against him.

The complainants alleged that Israel had repeatedly made threatening gestures, including mimicking a gun trigger and drawing a line across his neck. On June 7, 2017, after a near roadside encounter in Panglao, they claimed he again made similar gestures, prompting a complaint for grave threats.

Israel denied the accusation and argued before the SC that Article 282 on grave threats does not cover purely non-verbal gestures. He also maintained that his actions were spontaneous expressions of anger during the roadside encounter rather than deliberate threats intended to intimidate.

The MCTC convicted Israel of grave threats, a ruling later affirmed by the RTC and CA, which held that his gestures could only be interpreted as threats of future bodily harm.

The main issue before the SC was whether Israel’s non-verbal gestures, specifically pointing his fingers as if pulling a gun trigger and crossing them across his neck, constituted grave threats punishable under Article 282 of the RPC.

RULING

The SC granted Israel’s petition and acquitted him, holding that while non-verbal gestures may constitute grave threats, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the criminal intent required under Article 282 of the RPC.

The Court rejected Israel’s argument that Article 282 excludes non-verbal conduct, emphasizing that the law does not distinguish between verbal and non-verbal threats and instead punishes the communication of threats intended to intimidate. However, it stressed that grave threats require seriousness and persistence in carrying out the threat.

The SC found no evidence that Israel persisted in any intent to harm Navez after the roadside incident, noting that the gestures occurred during a heated encounter following a near vehicular collision and that he simply proceeded to court afterward to receive summons in the civil case.

“The threats dealt with under article 494 are those made with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened the belief that the threat will be carried into effect,” the Court said, stressing that threats made in the heat of anger without proof of persistence do not amount to grave threats under Article 282.

Accordingly, the SC reversed and set aside the appellate court’s rulings and ordered Israel’s acquittal.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.