Non-verbal threatening gestures with criminal intent may be considered grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Supreme Court (SC) said.
In a decision released Friday, the SC’s Third Division acquitted “Greg” of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gestures of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals.
The Court, however, clarified that “the crime of grave threats may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.”
Greg, who claimed to be a Belgian architect allowed to practice in the Philippines, was hired by two fellow Belgians to construct their building.
The business partners later discovered several defects, which were confirmed by a civil engineer.
Greg refused to correct the defects, insisting that the structure had been built according to Philippine practices, prompting the business partners to sue for damages.
In 2017, while the two business partners were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Greg’s motorcycle.
He then allegedly made two gestures: pointing his fingers at the head of one of his compatriots as if pulling a gun trigger, and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead him.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court and Regional Trial Court convicted Greg of grave threats, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA ruled that his gestures could only be interpreted as threats.
Seeking relief from the SC, Greg argued that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts and that Article 282 of the RPC does not cover purely non-verbal gestures.
The SC acquitted Greg after finding that criminal intent was not proven.
The high tribunal, however, disagreed with his argument that non-verbal gestures are excluded from the law’s coverage.
“To convict for grave threats, the RPC requires two elements: the actual speaking or uttering of the threats and the intent to intimidate,” the SC said, as quoted in a news release.
The SC held that Article 282 of the RPC does not distinguish between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures.
“What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate,” it said. “Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats can be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Therefore, threats can be either verbal or non-verbal.”
