High Court Clarifies Nonverbal Acts May Fall Under Grave Threats Law
By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that threatening gestures made without words may still constitute the crime of grave threats if they are intended to intimidate another person.
In a decision released Friday, the Court’s Third Division explained that nonverbal actions, such as hand signals implying violence or death, may be considered punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code when accompanied by a clear intent to threaten.
The ruling stemmed from a dispute involving Belgian architect Gregory Israel and his former business associates, Olivier Denonville and Christine Navez, in Panglao, Bohol.
According to the complainants, Israel allegedly made threatening gestures during a confrontation in June 2017. They claimed he pointed his fingers like a gun and mimicked a throat-slashing motion, which they interpreted as death threats.
Navez later told the court that the incident caused her emotional distress and sleepless nights, insisting that she feared for her safety.
Israel, however, denied any criminal intent and argued that his actions were simply expressions of anger during a tense roadside encounter. He maintained that there was no mens rea, or criminal intent, behind the gestures.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that threats do not need to be spoken verbally to qualify as grave threats. What matters, the Court said, is whether the act was intended to communicate intimidation or fear.
However, the Court ultimately sided with Israel after finding insufficient evidence that he seriously intended to carry out the alleged threats.
The magistrates pointed out that the incident occurred during a brief confrontation while Israel was on his way to receive a court summons related to a separate civil case. After the encounter, he reportedly continued directly to the Regional Trial Court in Tagbilaran without further action.
The Court explained that grave threats require not only intimidating conduct but also persistence and seriousness in carrying out the threat. In this case, prosecutors failed to prove that Israel continued or pursued the alleged threats beyond the isolated encounter.
Because of this, the high court reversed earlier rulings issued by the Tagbilaran Regional Trial Court in 2019 and the Court of Appeals in 2021, both of which had previously found grounds against Israel.
The decision also clarified that Philippine law does not distinguish between verbal and nonverbal threats, as long as the gesture clearly communicates an intent to intimidate another person.
ia/xf
