SC says threatening gestures may constitute grave threats

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that threatening gestures, even when not spoken or written, may still constitute grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) if accompanied by criminal intent.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel of grave threats after finding that criminal intent was not sufficiently proven in his alleged gestures of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.

However, the Court clarified an important legal principle, stating that grave threats may be committed not only through spoken or written words but also through non-verbal acts intended to intimidate.

Dispute over construction project

The case stemmed from a dispute involving Gregory Israel, who claimed to be a Belgian architect authorized to practice in the Philippines.

Israel had been engaged by Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez and Olivier Edmund Denonville to construct a building.

The complainants later discovered alleged defects in the structure, which were reportedly confirmed by a civil engineer.

Israel allegedly refused to address the issues, insisting that the construction complied with local Philippine standards.

The disagreement eventually led the business partners to file a civil case for damages.

In 2017, tensions escalated when Navez and Denonville nearly collided with Israel’s motorcycle while driving home from the airport.

The complainants alleged that Israel responded by pointing his fingers at Navez as if simulating a gunshot before drawing his fingers across his neck in a gesture allegedly suggesting beheading.

Lower courts — including the Municipal Circuit Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court — convicted Israel of grave threats, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which ruled that the gestures amounted to intimidation.

Israel elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Article 282 of the RPC does not cover purely non-verbal acts and insisting that he had no intention to intimidate.

The SC ultimately acquitted him, ruling that criminal intent had not been sufficiently established based on the circumstances of the case.

Nonetheless, the Court rejected the argument that grave threats must always be verbal or written.

According to the SC, Article 282 does not distinguish between threats communicated through words and those conveyed through gestures. What matters, the Court said, is the existence of intent to intimidate and the communication of a threat capable of causing fear.

The Court further noted that the provision, which traces its roots to the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, “embraces the entire range of human interactions” through which intimidation may be expressed, including non-verbal conduct.

While written or spoken threats may carry heavier penalties, the SC emphasized that gestures may still fall within the scope of the law if they clearly communicate a threatening message.

The ruling clarified that gestures alone, when intentionally threatening, may satisfy the elements of grave threats under the RPC.

However, in Israel’s case, prosecutors failed to prove the necessary criminal intent, leading to his acquittal.

The decision also underscored that courts must carefully assess both the nature of the act and the intent behind it when evaluating alleged threats, whether spoken, written, or conveyed through gestures.