Dear Atty. Nico,

I used to have a friend named Harry. When we were still friends, he used to borrow money from me and was punctual in paying them.

One time, I lent him an amount of P100,000. Months have passed and several requests for payment have been made but, such only fell on deaf ears. Finally, I confronted him that I would be constrained to file a collection case against him if the debt would not be settled.

To my surprise, he pointed his finger at me and began to make gestures as if he was “pulling the trigger of a gun on the head” and “slitting the throat.” Are such actions tantamount to a crime such as “grave threats?”

I hope to hear your response on this. Thank you.

Sally

□□□□□

Dear Sally,

In recent jurisprudence, the Supreme Court decided in the negative.

In the case of Israel v People (G.R. No. 265736, 19 November 2025), although the Court averred that non-verbal gestures may also be considered as grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus), it stated that grave threats must be serious in such a way that it is deliberate and that the offender “persists” in the idea involved in the threats.

The Court, citing Garma v People, further explained the significance of the union of the actus reus and mens rea where the former is “the actual speaking or uttering of the threats of, say, death or serious bodily harm” (the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a condition) while the latter 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. It is not necessary that the recipient actually feels intimidated or actually takes the words seriously. All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect.”

In any event and consistent with Garma, the element of “persistence” is necessary and material to determine the mens rea for the crime of amenanza or Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code… Without proof that the offender persisted in the idea of the threat, the mens rea for Grave Threats under Article 282 is lacking.

Applying the principles stated above in the given facts, such actions made by Harry would not amount to a crime of Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code as the element of “persistence” is non-existent; the gestures made by him were only done once.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio