GRAVE THREATS COMPLAINT (Philippine Law—A Complete Guide)

1. Statutory foundation

Provision	Key language	Notes
Article 282, Revised Penal Code (RPC)	“Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime…”	Core felony of grave threats.
Article 355, in relation to Art. 282	If the threat is made in writing, a public writing or through an intermediary, libel provisions on venue apply.
Republic Act 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)	Makes Art. 282 an underlying “content-related” offense; if the threat is sent through ICT, the penalty is one degree higher.
Rule 110 & 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure	Governs the filing, investigation and prosecution of complaints.
Local Government Code (Katarungang Pambarangay), Ch. VII	Barangay conciliation is generally required before filing, but exempt if: parties reside in different cities/municipalities; the threat involves use of a deadly weapon or demands ≥ ₱50,000; or any of the enumerated exceptions (e.g., government official in performance of duties).

2. Elements of the offense

A threat is made – by word, act, writing, phone, online post, emoji, etc.
Wrong threatened must itself amount to a crime – e.g., “I’ll burn your store”, “I’ll shoot you.”
Deliberate intent – not a mere outburst; the doer consciously seeks to terrorize or intimidate.
Communication to the offended party – consummated once the threat reaches the victim; fulfillment is irrelevant.
Condition (optional)
- With demand/condition (money, act, or omission) – penalty depends on whether the wrong is carried out.
- Without condition – lower penalty.

3. Penalty scheme

Scenario	Basic penalty	Modifiers
Threat to commit a felony without any condition	Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding ₱100,000.	If threat made with deadly weapon: next higher period.
Threat with condition & victim does NOT comply	Penalty one degree lower than that for the crime threatened.
Threat with condition & victim complies	Penalty for the crime actually threatened, in its maximum period.
Cyber-grave threats	Add one degree higher than the base penalty under Art. 282.
Light threats (Art. 285)	Arresto menor or fine ≤ ₱40,000.

Prescription:

Art. 282—10 years (highest penalty is prisión correccional).
Art. 285—5 years.

4. Distinguishing grave threats from related offenses

Offense	Key distinction
Light threats (Art. 285)	Threat does not amount to a felony, or is conditional on a lawful demand.
Grave coercion (Art. 286)	Immediate violence or intimidation compels another to do an act against his will—focus is forcing actual compliance, not the threat per se.
Alarm & scandal (Art. 155)	Public disturbance without a specific, serious threat of a felony.
Violence vs. women & children (RA 9262)	Threat must occur within intimate-partner or parent-child context; separate or concurrent prosecution.

5. Jurisprudential highlights

Case	Gist / Doctrine
People v. Rulluis, G.R. 157015 (2003)	Threat consummated upon communication; impossibility of execution is not a defense.
People v. Domo-o, G.R. 138436 (2000)	Conditional threat w/ demand for money earns penalty one degree lower than felony threatened if demand not met.
People v. Fabro, 93 Phil. 207	Momentary anger vs. deliberate threat—court looks at context, tone, prior acts.
People v. Pulgar, G.R. 193134 (2014)	Posting death threats on Facebook © constitutes cyber-grave threats; penalty one degree higher.
Cayanan v. People, G.R. 183852 (2012)	Words “Sasaksakin kita” plus brandishing a knife = grave threats with deadly weapon.

6. Procedural roadmap for filing a complaint

Step 1 – Gather evidence

Affidavit of the offended party describing the threat, context, exact words, place, date/time.
Screenshots, call logs, CCTV, chat exports, witnesses’ sworn statements, recovered weapon or note.

Step 2 – Barangay conciliation (Lupon Tagapamayapa)

Required if parties live in same city/municipality and no exemption applies.
File a written complaint (Form #1). If mediation fails within 15 days, the Lupon issues a Certification to File Action (CFA).

Step 3 – Prosecutor’s Office (Inquest or Regular PI)

Inquest: if offender was arrested flagrante or within hot pursuit; prosecutor resolves in 36 hours.
Regular preliminary investigation: file a Complaint-Affidavit + CFA; respondent files Counter-Affidavit; clarificatory hearing optional; Resolution issued.

Step 4 – Information filed in court

Proper venue: where threat was received (or where libel rules place it if written/online).
Bail: a matter of right (typically ₱6,000–₱36,000 for arresto mayor/prisión correccional).

Step 5 – Arraignment, Pre-trial, Trial

Prosecution: prove all elements plus identity; present testimonial, object and documentary evidence.
Defense options: alibi, denial, privileged communication (e.g., quarrel heat-of-passion), lack of deliberation, mistaken identity, extinction of criminal liability (pardon, amnesty, prescription).

7. Special considerations

Consummation vs. attempt – Unlike many felonies, threats are consummated upon communication; there is no “attempted grave threats.”
Complex crimes – If threat is made with firearm discharge, fiscal may charge illegal discharge (Art. 254) in relation to Art. 282, applying Art. 48 on complex crimes if single act.
Aggravating circumstances – nighttime, dwelling, abuse of superior strength, presence of minors, recidivism, unlicensed firearm under RA 10591.
Civil liability – Moral, exemplary and in proper cases temperate damages under Art. 100 RPC & Art. 2219 Civil Code.
Protection Orders – In domestic settings, a Barangay or Court-issued Protection Order (PO) under RA 9262 can immediately restrain threatening acts irrespective of a full criminal case.

8. Template: Complaint-Affidavit (extract)

I, Juan dela Cruz, Filipino, of legal age, single, residing at …, after having been duly sworn, depose and state:

1.  On 01 June 2025 at about 8:30 p.m., at Brgy. Mabini, Cebu City, respondent PEDRO REYES, wielding a kitchen knife, told me, “Papatayin kita at susunugin ko ang iyong bahay kung hindi mo ibabalik ang ₱50,000 bukas.”
2.  I felt imminent and real fear for my life and property…
3.  The threat amounts to ARSON and HOMICIDE, both felonies under the RPC.  
4.  I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing and to support the filing of a criminal case for Grave Threats under Art. 282 RPC against respondent.

(Attach pictures of weapon, CCTV grab, etc.; note barangay CFA number.)

9. Frequently-asked questions

Question	Answer (summary)
Can I record the threat?	Yes, audio/video is admissible if not obtained through wiretapping (RA 4200). Phone call recording without consent is inadmissible unless within the “party exception.”
What if I joked?	Joke is a defense only if circumstances show lack of intent; burden shifts once threat is proved.
Is apology a defense?	No, but it may mitigate penalty (Art. 13, par 7 RPC: voluntary surrender & confession).
Does the victim have to be present?	No—text, FB post, or message to a relative that reaches the victim counts.
When is light threats instead?	If the “wrong” threatened is not a crime (e.g., “I’ll slap you”—slight physical injuries may or may not be a felony depending on intent and gravity) or condition is lawful (e.g., “Pay your debt or I’ll sue you”).

10. Practical tips for practitioners

Capture metadata of digital threats (URL, timestamp, username, hash).
Verify jurisdiction & venue early; cyber variants allow filing in victim’s city of residence.
If the wrong threatened is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (e.g., murder), but there is no condition, the penalty remains arresto mayor—a peculiarity that sometimes justifies filing for acts of lasciviousness, slander by deed, or alarm & scandal when appropriate facts allow higher deterrence.
Always evaluate for companion civil or administrative remedies: PO, damages claim, workplace disciplinary action.
When representing the accused, scrutinize intent—heat of passion, mutual altercation, alcohol, or mental state can negate deliberation.

11. Conclusion

Grave threats rank among seemingly “minor” offenses yet often precede serious violence. Mastery of Article 282’s nuances—penalty gradations, conditional vs. non-conditional threats, cyber aggravation—empowers counsel and complainants alike to respond swiftly and lawfully. Equally vital is appreciation of barangay conciliation prerequisites and evidentiary subtleties (especially in digital media). Armed with the doctrines and procedural roadmap above, one can navigate a Philippine grave-threats complaint from affidavit drafting to verdict with clarity and confidence.