“I have a gun”—even when you don’t. What criminal liability attaches?

Short answer: Saying “may baril ako” (I have a gun) to intimidate a person can constitute threats under the Revised Penal Code even if you’re bluffing and have no firearm. It is not automatically “alarm and scandal,” which mainly punishes public disturbances (like actually firing a gun) rather than private intimidation. The precise crime—and its penalty—turns on how, where, and why the words were uttered, and whether any conditions or demands accompanied them.

I. The legal map

A. Grave Threats (Revised Penal Code, Art. 282)

Core idea. Punishes threatening another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (e.g., “I’ll shoot you,” “I’ll kill you,” “I’ll burn your car”) with serious intent to intimidate.

Key elements (distilled):

A threat: Words or acts conveying a serious intention to cause a crime against the victim’s person, honor, or property (or that of the victim’s family).
Wrong amounts to a crime: The act threatened—if carried out—would itself be a felony (e.g., homicide, physical injuries, arson, damage to property).
Intent to intimidate: The offender meant to cause fear; empty, heat-of-the-moment bluster may fall short if clearly non-serious in context.
With or without a condition:
- With a condition/demand (e.g., “Give me ₱10,000 or I’ll shoot you”), penalties are higher, and they vary depending on whether the offender attained the purpose.
- Without a condition (e.g., “I’ll kill you”), still punishable as grave threats, but generally at a lower degree.

Important notes.

A real gun is not required. The threat is punished for the intimidation itself; the actual capacity to execute the crime is immaterial at the moment of the threat.
Form of the threat. Verbal, written, through a middleman, gestures (e.g., hand in waistband implying a gun), or a combination.
Context matters. Prior quarrels, size and demeanor, location (deserted alley vs. crowded mall), and follow-up conduct can turn “mere words” into a punishable threat.

B. Other Threats / Light Threats (RPC, Arts. 283–285 family)

Philippine law also penalizes lesser forms of threats (often called light or other light threats) when:

The threatened act does not amount to a crime (e.g., threats of non-criminal harm), or
The manner of making the threat fits specific statutory patterns (e.g., in writing/through an intermediary, without conditions).

These provisions serve as a safety net when the intimidation is real but doesn’t squarely fit grave threats. Prosecutors sometimes fall back on these when the threatened “wrong” is arguable or proof of seriousness is thin.

C. Alarm and Scandal (RPC, Art. 155)

Core idea. Punishes public disturbances that cause or are calculated to cause alarm or danger, such as:

Discharging a firearm or explosive in a town or public place;
Causing disturbance or scandal in public places (often charged when there’s rowdy, offensive, or dangerous public behavior that alarms the public, provided more serious public-order crimes don’t apply).

Crucial distinction. Merely saying “I have a gun” generally does not satisfy alarm and scandal unless it actually creates a public disturbance or panic (e.g., shouting it in a crowded train to sow fear). The classic, clear-cut Art. 155 case is firing a gun, not simply boasting of one.

II. Applying the rules to “I have a gun” (…but there’s none)

Scenario 1: Private confrontation; direct intimidation; no weapon shown

Likely charge: Grave threats if the statement seriously conveys an intent to commit a crime (“I’ll shoot you”)—even if it’s a bluff.
Alternative (fallback): Light/other threats if the prosecution doubts that the threatened wrong amounts to a crime or questions seriousness.

Scenario 2: Public place; statement causes commotion/panic

Dual exposure:
- Threats (grave or light), and
- Alarm and scandal only if the utterance actually triggers public alarm or is calculated to do so (e.g., shouting “May baril ako, lilipulin ko kayo!” in a packed cinema causing people to flee).
No gun needed to be liable for threats; for alarm and scandal, the focus is on public disturbance, not the existence of a firearm.

Scenario 3: With a condition or demand

“Give me your phone or I’ll shoot you.”
- Grave threats with a condition (higher penalty brackets), sometimes robbery (intimidation) if property is surrendered.

Scenario 4: Gestures implying a gun (hand in bag/waistband)

Still threats if the gesture + words seriously communicate a felonious intent. Actual possession is irrelevant to threats—though it can affect aggravating circumstances if a real weapon is actually used or displayed.

Scenario 5: Text/Chat/DM saying “I have a gun; I’ll shoot you later.”

Written threats are actionable. Screenshots, metadata, and platform logs bolster proof. Venue can be where the message was received.

III. What prosecutors and courts look for

Seriousness of the utterance
- Tone, choice of words, proximity, demeanor, history between parties, and subsequent acts (e.g., stalking the victim after the threat) can prove intent to intimidate.
That the threatened act is a crime (for grave threats)
- “I’ll shoot/kill/burn/stab” = clearly criminal.
- Ambiguous lines (“You’ll regret this”) may fall to light threats or unjust vexation, if at all.
Presence (or absence) of a demand/condition
- Impacts the classification and penalty under the threats provisions.
Public disturbance for alarm and scandal
- Did the words/actions cause or were they calculated to cause public alarm?
- Crowd reaction, CCTV, 911/barangay calls, and security incident logs are typical proof.

IV. Common misclassifications (and how to think about them)

“He said he had a gun—so that’s alarm and scandal.” Not automatically. If it’s a private threat and no public disturbance occurred, the proper charge is usually threats, not alarm and scandal.
“There was no gun, so there’s no case.” False. Threats punish intimidation itself; capacity to carry out the threat is not required.
“He shouted in a mall that he had a gun but nobody panicked.” If the setting and delivery were calculated to cause alarm (e.g., in a way likely to scare the public), alarm and scandal can still be argued. If the utterance was plainly directed at one person and didn’t alarm others, expect threats to be the lead charge.

V. Related (sometimes overlapping) offenses

Grave Coercions (Art. 286). Forcing someone to do/omit something without legal authority through violence, threats, or intimidation. If the “I have a gun” is used to compel action (e.g., “Sign this” or “Leave now”), prosecutors may opt for or add coercions.
Unjust Vexation (Art. 287). Catch-all for vexatious conduct that doesn’t fit other crimes; sometimes used when the intimidation is annoying but not clearly felonious.
Illegal possession of firearms (RA 10591). Irrelevant if the speaker has no gun. If a replica/airsoft is involved, specialized rules may apply, but possession alone isn’t the issue here—the focus is the threat.
Slander/Oral Defamation (Art. 358). Not the typical fit for pure threats, but volatile confrontations sometimes contain defamatory insults alongside threats, producing multiple charges.
Robbery with Intimidation (Arts. 294/299 et seq.). If property is taken because of the gun claim and intimidation, robbery may supersede simple threats.

VI. Evidence & proof strategies

For complainants:

Record specifics: exact words, time, location, who heard/saw, immediate reactions.
Preserve messages: screenshots + exports with timestamps and platform identifiers; don’t delete threads.
Get CCTV/bodycam where available; request mall/establishment incident reports.
Medical/psychological reports if fear/anxiety required treatment (may inform damages in a civil action).
Barangay blotter promptly (helps prove immediacy and credibility).

For accused:

Contextualize the words: show lack of serious intent; heat-of-the-moment utterance; mutual provocation; immediate retraction/apology.
Show absence of intimidation: victim’s conduct (e.g., calmly ignoring, laughing) can dilute the “seriousness” inference.
Alibi/corroboration for alleged public disturbance (to resist alarm and scandal).

VII. Penalties (orientation guide, not a calculator)

Grave threats: Penalties scale with (a) presence of a condition/demand and (b) whether the offender achieved the purpose. Threats without a condition are punished but at a lower degree.
Light/other threats: Lower penalties than grave threats.
Alarm and scandal: Generally light penalties (short jail terms and/or fines), unless conduct overlaps with more serious public-order crimes, which will prevail.

(Exact durations and fine ranges change with amendments and special laws; consult the current text and jurisprudence for computations.)

VIII. Charging & venue; barangay conciliation

Venue: Usually where the threat was made or, for electronic messages, where the victim received it.
Barangay Katarungang Pambarangay: If parties live in the same city/municipality, many less serious threat cases are mediable at the barangay before filing in court (exceptions apply for more serious offenses or when covered by other exemptions).
Multiple charges can be filed from one incident (e.g., grave threats + alarm and scandal) if facts support both, but double jeopardy bars multiple convictions for the same act under the same legal injury.

IX. Practical decision tree

Were the words/actions intended to intimidate a specific person?
- Yes → go to 2.
- No → consider alarm and scandal only if they alarmed the public or were calculated to do so.
Does the threatened act amount to a crime (shoot/kill/burn/stab)?
- Yes → Grave threats.
- No/unclear → Light/other threats (or unjust vexation).
Was there a condition/demand (pay/leave/sign/hand over)?
- Yes → Grave threats with condition (higher penalty bands).
- No → Grave threats without condition (lower band).
Did it also cause public alarm/panic?
- Yes → add alarm and scandal.
- No → threats alone.
Was property actually surrendered due to intimidation?
- Yes → assess robbery (intimidation) or related special complex crimes.

X. Takeaways

Bluffing about a gun can be a crime. The law punishes threats for their intimidation, not for the weapon’s existence.
Alarm and scandal targets public disturbance, not private fear. Without actual or calculated public alarm, it’s usually not the right charge.
Conditions/demands matter for classification and penalties.
Context is king: tone, place, audience, gestures, and aftermath determine whether prosecutors file grave threats, light threats, alarm and scandal, or a mix.

Final note

This article is an educational overview. Specific cases turn on details and current jurisprudence. For an incident you’re handling, bring the exact facts (who, what, when, where, exact words, witnesses, messages) to counsel so they can map them to the most fitting offense and penalty framework.