GRAVE THREATS UNDER ARTICLE 282, REVISED PENAL CODE (PHILIPPINES)

A comprehensive doctrinal, jurisprudential, and practical guide

1. Statutory Basis

Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime shall suffer:

The penalty next lower than that prescribed by law for the crime threatened if the offender (a) demands money or any other condition, even though the demand is not complied with, or (b) makes the threat in writing or through a middleman;

Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding ₱100,000* if the threat is not subject to a demand and is not in writing or conveyed through an intermediary;

Arresto mayor if the threat is conditional, but the condition is not illegal and the offender attains his purpose.

* The 2017 DOJ-CHART of Amendatory Fines applies: the original ₱1,000 limit (Act 3815, 1930) is now ₱100,000 under R.A. 10951.

2. Requisites (Elements)

Element	Explanation	Notes & Cases
1. A threat	An express or implied declaration of intention to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime (e.g., murder, arson, libel).	People v. Velarde (G.R. No. L-22654, 1968): words “I will kill you” suffice.
2. Wrong must amount to a felony	The threatened act, if carried out, would constitute an offense under Philippine law.	Threatening “to give you a slap” (only slight physical injuries) falls to Light Threats, Art. 285.
3. Specificity toward person, honor, or property	Includes ascendants, descendants, spouses, and collateral relatives within the 4th civil degree.	People v. Mabuyo (CA-G.R. No. 19038-R).
4. Participation of offender	The offender knowingly and consciously communicates the threat.	Drunkenness is only mitigating if not habitual.

Note: Animus iniuriandi (intent to intimidate or alarm) is essential; mere bravado without serious intent may negate liability (People v. Vitug, CA).

3. Three Punishable Modalities

Modality	Key Distinctions	Penalty
A. With demand or condition OR in writing/through an agent	• Demand: money, property, act/omission • “Or else…” language • Writing: text, e-mail, social media DM • Middleman: delivering a note, phone call relay	One degree lower than the threatened felony — If murder (reclusion temporal) is threatened, offender suffers *reclusion temporal minus* one degree = prisión mayor** (6 yrs-1 day to 12 yrs).
B. No demand, purely verbal/personal	• Spontaneous declaration without any writing or intermediary	Arresto mayor (1 mo-1 day to 6 mos) + fine ≤ ₱100k
C. Legal condition complied with	• “Unless you leave my house I’ll shoot you.” Here leaving is lawful. • Offender achieves his purpose (the victim leaves).	Arresto mayor (same range)

4. Comparison With Related Offenses

Related Crime	What Makes It Different	Article
Light threats	Wrong threatened does not amount to a felony or is slight physical injuries; or threat made during a quarrel.	Art. 285
Robbery/extortion	Threat co-exists with taking of personal property; if threat of violence = Robbery with violence/intimidation (Art. 293).	Arts. 293-296
Coercion	Offender actually forces victim to do/omit an act (violence or intimidation must be immediately effective).	Art. 286
Acts of lasciviousness / rape threats	Threat is merely an aggravating circumstance or element for relationship-based R.A. 8353 crimes.	RPC Art. 336, R.A. 8353
VAWC (R.A. 9262)	Threats committed by husband/partner against woman/dating partner are punished under a special law; penalty up to prisión mayor.	R.A. 9262
Terroristic threats (Anti-Terrorism Act, R.A. 11479)	When made with intent to intimidate population or gov’t to do/abstain from an act; heavier penalty (12 yrs).	Sec. 4(b)

5. Jurisprudence Capsule

People v. Domasian (G.R. No. L-41413, 1934) – Threat handwritten on cigarette paper demanding ₱50 or the recipient “will die like a dog” = modality A (writing), penalty one degree lower.
People v. Savilla (CA-G.R. No. 07811-CR, 1954) – Oral threat “Babarilin kita pag bumalik ka” (I’ll shoot you if you return) with no demand; victim left. Modality C applied.
People v. Cid (G.R. No. L-3535, 1951) – Accused pointed a gun saying “I will kill you” but immediately desisted; still liable: consummation does not require victim’s actual fear or accused’s capability.
People v. Bongon (G.R. No. 224834, March 7 2018) – Text-message threat posted on Facebook Messenger satisfied “in writing.”
People v. De la Cruz (G.R. No. 191563, 2012) – Distinction between threat and blackmail: threat aimed at intimidation, blackmail at extortion; yet both may fall under modality A if money is demanded.

6. Stages of Execution & Prescription

Grave threats is a consummated offense the moment the menace is communicated. There are no frustrated or attempted stages because the crime lies in the intimidation itself.
Prescription:
- With demand/writing (penalty ≥ prisión mayor when threatened crime is serious): 15 years (Art. 90, RPC).
- Otherwise (penalty arresto mayor): 5 years.
- Period runs from day threat was made (Art. 91).

7. Penalties in Detail (Post-R.A. 10951 Adjustments)

Threatened Felony	Statutory Penalty	Penalty for Grave Threats Modality A (one degree lower)
Murder	Reclusion temporal – reclusion perpetua	Prisión mayor
Serious physical injuries	Prisión mayor	Prisión correccional
Arson of dwelling	Reclusión temporal	Prisión mayor
Libel	Prisión correccional or fine	Arresto mayor

For modalities B and C: fixed at arresto mayor irrespective of the crime threatened.

8. Defenses & Mitigating Circumstances

Lack of intent to threaten – statements uttered in jest or heat of the moment may negate animus.
Unlawful provocation by the victim – may mitigate.
Self-defense context – a conditional threat to repel aggression (“Back off or I’ll shoot”) is not punishable; it is a warning, not intimidation.
Age, intoxication, passion & obfuscation – ordinary mitigating per Arts. 13 & 15.
Impossibility/Irrational threat – still punishable if a reasonable person would feel intimidated; People v. Penesa upheld liability where accused, armed only with bolo, threatened to bomb a school.

9. Civil Liability

Moral damages for mental anguish/fright (Art. 2219, Civil Code).
Attorney’s fees if victim compelled to litigate (Art. 2208).
Actual damages (medical, relocation costs) if proven.

10. Procedural Notes

Topic	Rule
Venue	Where threat was received or where written threat was posted/mailed (Rule 110 § 15).
Court jurisdiction	Arresto mayor ⇒ Municipal/Metropolitan/MTCC; penalties ≥ prisión correccional ⇒ Regional Trial Court.
Arrest without warrant	Only if threat is in the presence of officers and premises § 5(a) Rule 113, or if threat is part of a continuing offense (e.g., series of menacing texts).
Bail	Generally bailable; amount commensurate with imposable penalty (Sec. 9, Rule 114).
Probation	Available if penalty ≤ prisión correccional and accused meets eligibility (P.D. 968).

11. Practical & Bar-Exam Tips

Identify the threatened felony first. The penalty hinges on its gravity.
Look for any demand, writing, or intermediary. These automatically escalate the penalty (modalities A vs B).
Remember the “legal condition” loophole. If the offender legitimately seeks a lawful act (e.g., “Pay your long-overdue rent or I’ll sue you in court”), no grave threat arises.
Differentiate from robbery/extortion. If money or property is actually taken, pivot to Arts. 293-296 instead.
Include family members. Threats against the child to compel the parent are still within Art. 282.
Social-media evidence—screenshots must be authenticated (Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Prescription traps. Because threats often go unreported, check if the 5-year or 15-year period has tolled before filing.

12. Interaction With Special Laws

Special Law	Overlaps	Which Law Prevails?
VAWC (R.A. 9262)	Threat by husband/partner to inflict violence.	R.A. 9262 (special law) supersedes; penalizes even light threats.
Anti-Terrorism Act	Threat to bomb mall “to coerce gov’t.”	R.A. 11479 applies; heavier penalty (12 yrs), Art. 282 absorbed.
Cybercrime Act (R.A. 10175)	Threat transmitted online.	Both: Art. 282 (substantive) + prision correccional max or fine (Sec. 6, R.A. 10175) one degree higher due to “committed through ICT.”

13. Illustrative Flow-Chart (Textual)

Was any wrong amounting to a crime threatened?
      |        \
   No |         Yes
 (Art. 285)     |
                |
     Was the menace accompanied by demand OR written/relayed?
            |          \
          Yes           No
          |             |
    Penalty = 1°↓      Penalty = arresto mayor
    of threatened       (Modality B)
    felony (Modality A)
                \
        Condition legal & achieved?
                |
               Yes
       Penalty = arresto mayor
           (Modality C)

14. Conclusion

Article 282 punishes the act of intimidation itself, separate from any subsequent offense that may follow if the threat is carried out. Its nuanced gradations— hinging on motive (demand), medium (writing/agent), and conditionality— require prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges alike to perform a two-step analysis: (1) Identify the threatened crime; (2) Classify the modality. Mastery of these distinctions, sharpened by jurisprudence and recent statutory amendments (R.A. 10951, Cybercrime Act, VAWC, Anti-Terrorism), is indispensable for bar candidates and practitioners addressing intimidation-based crimes in Philippine penal law.