Grave threats are a crime under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), punished according to the gravity and manner of the threat. The core issue you’re asking about is evidence—specifically, whether a case for grave threats can be filed and sustained if all you have is hearsay.

This article explains: (1) what grave threats are and their elements, (2) how cases are initiated and evaluated (police, prosecutor, court), (3) what “hearsay” means under Philippine rules of evidence, (4) when statements about threats are not hearsay or fall under exceptions, and (5) practical guidance to make a complaint viable.

1) What are “grave threats”?

Essentials (simplified):

A person threatens another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (e.g., “I’ll kill you,” “I’ll burn your house,” “I’ll kidnap your child”).
The threat may be conditional (e.g., “unless you pay”) or unconditional.
Penalties vary depending on whether there is a condition, whether the condition is attained, and the nature of the threatened felony. (Related offenses include “light threats” and “other light threats,” which cover lesser forms or different modes of intimidation.)

Key point: In threats, the utterance or communication itself is the gravamen (the actus reus). So, proof focuses on what was said or conveyed, by whom, to whom, how, and in what context.

2) How do grave-threats cases move through the system?

Police report/blotter. You can report threats to the police. This can be based on any information (even secondhand), but a blotter entry is not proof of the crime; it’s only a record.

Prosecutor (complaint & preliminary investigation). A criminal case typically starts with a complaint-affidavit supported by affidavits of witnesses with personal knowledge and any documentary/digital evidence. The prosecutor determines probable cause—a reasonable belief that a crime was committed and the respondent likely committed it.

If your complaint rests solely on hearsay (e.g., “A told me that B threatened C,” with no affidavit from A or C and no other proof), it will almost always be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
The offended party need not be the only complainant; a complainant may rely on supporting affidavits from direct witnesses or material evidence. But someone with personal knowledge must carry the evidentiary load.

Court (trial). To convict, the State must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using admissible evidence. Hearsay (absent an exception) is inadmissible. A case that squeaks past the prosecutor on thin or hearsay-laden material will likely fail at trial without competent proof.

3) What is “hearsay” in this context?

Under the Rules on Evidence, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, when the declarant is not presented for cross-examination. Classic example: you testify, “X told me that Y said, ‘I will kill Z.’” If you did not personally hear Y, your statement about Y’s threat is hearsay as to Y’s utterance.

Consequences:

Police stage: You may report hearsay, but it doesn’t prove the crime.
Prosecutor stage: Hearsay-only complaints are weak and commonly dismissed.
Trial stage: Hearsay is inadmissible, unless it falls under a recognized exception or is offered for a non-hearsay purpose (see below).

4) When “threat” statements are not hearsay, or are admissible anyway

A. Direct testimony from someone who heard/received the threat

If a witness personally heard the words (or directly received the message), their testimony is not hearsay—they perceived it. That is the strongest way to prove threats.

B. “Independently relevant statements” (verbal acts)

When the fact that the words were said is the very thing the law punishes (as with threats), a witness who personally heard the threat can testify to the fact of utterance. The testimony is admitted to prove that the statement was made, not to prove that the threatened crime would actually happen. Still, this requires a firsthand witness, not secondhand retellings.

C. Admissions/Confessions of the accused

Statements by the accused themselves can be admissible as admissions (subject to constitutional safeguards, especially for custodial confessions). A proper, rights-compliant admission about making the threat is powerful evidence.

D. Hearsay exceptions (selected, commonly relevant)

Spontaneous statements (formerly “res gestae”): statements made under the stress of excitement may be admissible if the predicate is satisfied.
Entries in the regular course of business, public records, etc., rarely decisive in threat cases but can corroborate (e.g., official incident logs with proper foundation).
Dying declaration: rarely applicable to threats unless the threatened act is carried out and the declarant dies.
Declarations against interest: narrow and fact-specific.

E. Electronic and documentary evidence

Text messages, chats, emails, social posts: Admissible as electronic documents, if authenticated. Typical routes:
- Testimony of a recipient/sender with personal knowledge.
- Device examination establishing authorship and integrity.
- Service provider certifications/records.
Screenshots can help but are stronger when paired with metadata and testimony tracing the messages to the accused’s account/device.
Audio/video/CCTV: Admissible if genuine and properly authenticated (who recorded, chain of custody, device integrity).
- Important caution (Anti-Wiretapping Act): Secretly recording a private conversation without consent of all parties can be illegal and inadmissible. Open, non-private utterances (e.g., shouted in public) or recordings made with all-party consent do not raise the same issue. Get legal advice before relying on covert recordings.

5) So… can you file based on hearsay?

Short answer:

You can report hearsay to the police and even attempt to file a complaint, but a criminal case for grave threats almost never prospers on hearsay alone.
Prosecutors generally require affidavits from direct witnesses and/or admissible documentary/electronic evidence showing the threat itself and identity of the person who made it.
At trial, hearsay will be excluded unless it fits a specific exception or is offered for a permissible non-hearsay purpose—and even then, you still need personal-knowledge testimony or properly authenticated evidence tying the threat to the accused.

6) Practical roadmap to make a grave-threats complaint viable

Identify firsthand witnesses.
- The recipient of the threat (primary witness).
- Bystanders who personally heard the threat.
Collect admissible communications.
- Texts/chats/emails/social posts from the accused; retain the devices; take screenshots and, if possible, obtain provider logs.
- Do not rely on forwarded messages without linking them to the accused’s account/device.
Document context and identity.
- Why you know it was that person (caller ID, known number, profile handle, prior dealings, recognition of voice/face, circumstances).
- Venue/date/time of the threat; whether there was a condition/demand; whether you felt intimidated; any subsequent acts (stalking, presence with weapons, etc.).
Affidavits.
- Prepare a complaint-affidavit (by the offended party) plus supporting affidavits from firsthand witnesses.
- Attach authenticated copies of digital evidence; state how you obtained them and maintain chain of custody for devices or storage media.
Consider related remedies.
- Protection orders (e.g., if the threats are part of intimate partner abuse under the anti-VAWC law).
- Barangay conciliation: many threat cases skip barangay conciliation because of penalty levels or other statutory exceptions, but check your specific facts and local practice.
- Civil and administrative routes (e.g., workplace/School discipline if applicable) parallel to any criminal complaint.
Prescription (time limits).
- File as early as possible. Threats typically carry correctional or afflictive penalties (depending on the threat and conditions), which correspond to multi-year prescriptive periods. Don’t cut it close; earlier filing helps evidence preservation.
Avoid legal pitfalls.
- Covert recordings of private conversations may violate the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
- Don’t embellish facts; inconsistencies undermine credibility.
- Keep original devices intact; avoid altering message threads or metadata.

7) Frequently asked scenarios

“My cousin told me the neighbor said he’ll kill me. I didn’t hear it myself.” You can report it, but for a criminal case you’ll need your cousin’s affidavit (as the firsthand hearer) and, ideally, corroboration (another witness, CCTV, texts, prior similar threats).
“The threat came via Facebook Messenger from a profile we suspect is his.” Preserve the chat, capture screenshots, and keep the device. You’ll need to authenticate that the account is his (prior admissions, unique info, device linkage, IP/telecom records where obtainable). A witness who received the message should execute an affidavit.
“I recorded him yelling in a crowded street.” If the utterance was public (not a private communication), recordings are generally admissible if authenticated. Your own testimony that you heard the words—and that this recording fairly and accurately captures them—matters.
“Police blotter says I was threatened.” Helpful as corroboration and for timeline, but not proof of the threat by itself.

8) Bottom line

Filing based purely on hearsay is technically possible as a report, but it is not sufficient to establish probable cause, much less to convict.
To move the needle, anchor your complaint on firsthand testimony and properly authenticated evidence (texts, recordings, CCTV, social posts), and be mindful of wiretapping and authentication rules.

This is general information on Philippine criminal procedure and evidence regarding grave threats. For case-specific strategy—especially where digital or recorded evidence is involved—consult a Philippine lawyer who can assess admissibility, exceptions, and the best evidentiary package for your facts.