Attempted Homicide vs. Grave Threats under Philippine Law
(A comprehensive Philippine-law guide for lawyers, law-enforcement officers, and students)
1. Statutory Foundations
| Topic | Primary Code Provisions | Ancillary Provisions |
|---|---|---|
| Attempted Homicide | Art. 6 (Stages of Execution) & Art. 249 (Homicide), Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Art. 50-51 (Penalties for attempts/frustrations); Art. 13-14 (mitigating/aggravating circumstances); 2017 Rules on Criminal Procedure |
| Grave Threats | Art. 282, RPC (three paragraphs covering conditional, non-conditional, and verbal threats) | Art. 283 (Light threats); Art. 284 (Bond for good behaviour) |
2. Elements Compared
| Attempted Homicide | Grave Threats | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Actus reus | A direct overt act which would have produced death were it not for causes independent of the offender’s will (e.g., firing a gun at the victim but missing). (Attempted Homicide Charges Philippines - respicio.ph) | The offender threatens another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (usually death or serious injury); the threat may be by words, gestures, or a brandished weapon. |
| 2. Stage of execution | Attempted—execution begins but is not completed for a reason independent of the actor. No fatal wound need be inflicted. | The crime is consummated upon communication of the threat that inspires fear; the threatened wrong need not be carried out. |
| 3. Mens rea | Animus interficendi (intent to kill) must be unequivocally shown by weapon used, targeting of vital spots, or utterances. | Specific intent to intimidate or coerce; intent to kill is not an element. |
| 4. Injury to victim | Injury may be absent or slight; what matters is the lethal nature of the act. | No physical injury is required; psychological fear is sufficient. |
| 5. Independent cause | Intervention, misfire, or victim’s evasive act prevents consummation. | Not applicable; the crime is complete once the threat is heard/received. |
3. Penalties and Collateral Sanctions
| Crime | Prescribed Penalty (basic) | Ranges (after recomputation under the three-fold law and R.A. 10951) |
|---|---|---|
| Attempted Homicide | Two (2) degrees lower than the penalty for consummated homicide (Art. 51, RPC) ⇒ prisión correccional maximum (4 years 2 months & 1 day – 6 years). (Attempted Homicide Charges Philippines - respicio.ph) | Indeterminate Sentence Law applies; courts usually impose 4 years 2 months & 1 day – 6 years as maximum, with a minimum anywhere within prisión correccional minimum to medium. |
| Grave Threats | ¶1: w/condition & threat to commit a grave felony → penalty next lower than threatened felony; | |
| ¶2: w/o condition or if condition not perpetrated → arresto mayor & ₱100 k fine (now indexed); | ||
| ¶3: threat in writing or with weapon → penalty in ¶1 or ¶2 increased by one degree. | Bond to keep the peace may be required (Art. 284, RPC). For simple “I will kill you!” cases, courts often impose straight penalties of 2–6 months arresto mayor (e.g., Garma v. People, G.R. 248317, Mar 16 2022). (D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library) |
4. Key Doctrinal Case Law
| Doctrine | Leading / Recent Cases |
|---|---|
| Intent to Kill inferred from weapon & aiming at vital parts | People v. Fullante, G.R. 238905, Dec 1 2021 – police officer fired at victim’s chest but missed → attempted homicide. (D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library) |
| Distinction between attempted & frustrated stages | People v. Apas, G.R. 248873, Feb 28 2023 – wound was non-fatal and medical evidence showed no mortal danger → attempted not frustrated. (NOTICE - Supreme Court of the Philippines) |
| Threat complete upon utterance | Garma v. People, supra – “Patayen mi kuman” shouted in public sufficed even if attack never followed. (D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library) |
| Written threats cause higher penalty | People v. Azurin, G.R. 249322, Oct 5 2022 – demand-letter threat to burn house unless ₱50 k paid → ¶3, Art 282. (G.R. No. 249322 - Supreme Court E-Library) |
5. Distinguishing Factors in Practice
Nature of Fear Produced
Attempted homicide creates imminent lethal danger; grave threats produce apprehension of a future harm.Evidentiary Markers
- Attempt: ballistic tests, trajectory, medical findings.
- Threat: testimony on words uttered, text messages, CCTV of gestures.
Possible Reclassification
- A stabbing motion that stops one inch from the victim’s abdomen because the assailant is restrained is attempted homicide.
- Brandishing a bolo while shouting “I will hack you tomorrow!” is grave threats unless the bolo is actually swung.
Complex Crimes & Absorption
- If a threat is used to facilitate robbery, threat is absorbed by robbery with violence.
- If the offender both shoots (missing) and issues threats, they may be indicted for attempted homicide and grave threats (distinct elements, different juridical time).
6. Defenses & Mitigating Circumstances
- Provocation or Obfuscation (Art. 13[4]) can lower attempted homicide to prisión correccional medium or even slight physical injuries.
- Heat of Passion usually negates premeditation but does not negate intent to kill.
- Conditional Threats made in jest may negate intent, but jurisprudence requires clear and convincing proof of joking context (Paera v. People, G.R. 181626, May 30 2011). (G.R. No. 181626 - Supreme Court E-Library)
7. Procedural Notes
| Point | Attempted Homicide | Grave Threats |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest without warrant | YES, if in flagrante (Rule 113 §5[b])—e.g., accused caught shooting. | Not usually, unless threats are being made in presence of LEO. |
| Bail | Generally bailable as penalty ≤ reclusion temporal. | Always bailable; often released on recognizance. |
| Prescriptive period | 10 years (Art. 90, RPC – offense punishable by ≥ prisión correccional). | 5 years (punishable by ≤ prisión correccional; Art. 90). |
| Affidavit of Desistance | Does not bind prosecution; intent to kill is an offense against the State. | May lead to dismissal if private complainant’s fear has ceased, but prosecution can still proceed in public interest. |
8. Practical Tips for Practitioners
- Charge Evaluation: Examine medical certificate first; non-fatal but serious wounds can still be frustrated, not attempted.
- Evidence of Intent: In attempted homicide, always link animus interficendi—the Supreme Court is strict; a simple punch with a fist rarely suffices.
- Documentation of Threats: Screenshots, voice recordings, and independent witnesses are critical; courts disfavor “it was only words” defenses.
- Plea Bargaining: Accused in attempted homicide often bargain down to serious physical injuries; in grave threats, fiscal may allow plea to alarm and scandal (Art. 155) when weapon was merely flourished.
- Victim Remedies: Victims may simultaneously seek protection orders (VAAWC Act, Safe Spaces Act) if threats are gender-based.
9. Conclusion
While attempted homicide and grave threats both involve peril to life, they protect distinct societal interests: the former guards against the actual unlawful taking of life, the latter against psychological intimidation that erodes personal security. Appreciating the nuanced elements—particularly intent to kill, stage of execution, and the nature of harm feared—ensures correct charging, fair penalties, and effective deterrence.
This article synthesizes statutory text, 2021-2024 Supreme Court decisions, and recent commentaries to provide a ready reference for Philippine criminal-law practice.