Republic of the Philippines MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT BRANCH 005, TUBOD-ALEGRIA TUBOD, SURIGAO DEL NORTE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 328 FOR: -versusGRAVE THREATS ROSARIO RANARIO and ENCARNACION LABAD, Accused. x---------------------------------------x

DECISION Private complainant Tessie Paz y Ranario (Tessie) filed a criminal complaint against accuses Rosario Ranario (Rosario) and Encarnacion Labad (Encarnacion) for Grave Threat under Article 292 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The information stated that on or about the 17th day of June, 2000 at 11 oclock in the morning, more or less, in sitio Bagjang, barangay Capayahan, Tubod, Surigao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above mentioned accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping on another, moved by personal resentment which they entertained against Tessie Paz did then and willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten said Tessie Paz with an infliction upon the latter of a wrong amounting to a crime that is to kill her if she will make coprax in the coconut land which she owned in the aforesaid barangay to her damage and prejudice in the sum as allowed by law.

STIPULATION OF FACTS BY THE PARTIES At the trial, during the direct examination, the witnesses of the prosecution state the following facts: 1. That on June 17, 2000 at around 11:00 oclock in the morning, together with her husband Felipe Paz (Felipe) went to Sitio Bagjang, barangay Capayahan, Tubod, Surigao Del Norte to harvest coconuts to be processed as coprax owned by her father, the deceased Pascasio Ranario (Pascasio); That they were not able to harvest the coconuts because the accused Rosario Ranario and Encarnacion Labad threatened to kill them if they proceed in harvesting the coconuts, the accused Rosario is the her uncle and brother of her father Pascasio; That at the time that the two accused made the threat, they were both armed by bolos tied on their waste, and that Rosario was holding the said bolo when he uttered the threat; That the private complainant Tessie Paz became afraid and trembled with fear and told the accused Rosario ad Encarnacion that they do not want to die nor to kill each other, they will rather seek assistance to the Barangay officials; That the accused answered and said we are ready to face you wherever you seek assistance; That Tessie immediately left the area and proceed to the barangay office of Barangay Capayahan, Tubod to report the incident, but was not able to reach on time because it was already closed; That she proceed to the house of Kagawad Noblito Alaan (Alaan), because she was told that he is the duty kagawad of that day and reported the said incident; That Kagawad Alaan immediately take action and ask barangay Tanod Francisco Alciso (Alciso) to accompany
2

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

him to the area where the incident happen, and went there together with Filipe who drove the motorcycle; 9. That when they arrived at Sitio Bagjang, it was already fenced;

10. That Tessie, after she went to the house of Kagawad Alaan, went to barangay office, there she saw Kagawad Alejandra Taro (Taro), the officer in charge of the barangay, and later on, accused Rosario and Encarnacion arrived very angry and mad, and uttered the word come here and I will chop your face because I will no longer listen to the law; 11. That after those words were uttered, Tessie and Kagawad Taro were very afraid and run towards the barangay office; 12. That at the same time, Alaan her husband and Alciso arrived from the area where they conducted ocular inspection; 13. Kagawad Taro instructed BPLK Alciso to confiscate the sharp bolos that were tied around the waists of the accused Rosario and Encarnacion; 14. That when the accused were disarmed, Tessie told them that she will file a case for grave threats against them, but were advised by the barangay officials to instead attend first the barangay mediation, however, no settlement were reach and were issued certification to file action; and 15. That because of the incident, Tessie was not able to harvest 1,000 coconuts with the value of Php3,000.00, in addition suffered moral damages of Php20,000.00 and attorneys fees of Php15,000.00 plus Php1,000.00 per appearance. In contention, the defense interposes the following facts in the trial: 1. That on June 17, 2000 at around 7:00 oclock in the morning, accused Encarnacion, together with her husband Rosario and her eight (8) years old son, they were cutting grasses and fencing the land belonging to her husband, in

Sitio Bagjang, barangay Capayahan, Tubod, Surigao Del Norte; 2. That the said land was the inheritance from the parents of accused Rosario; That around 11:00 oclock in the morning, private complainant Tessie and Felipe Paz arrived; That thereafter, they scuffled and had an argument with Rosario; That they were arguing about the ownership of the land; That after the argument, Rosario was threatened by Felipe Paz, husband of private complainant; That Filipe was very angry and told Rosario to leave the land or he will be shoot; That Felipe opened his shirt, drew a gun from his waist and aimed it to Rosario; That because their freight and fear, accused Rosario and Encarnacion, together with their son, run away towards the direction of Barangay Capayahan;

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10. That about 12:00 noon, they reach the barangay office of Capayahan and complaint to Kagawad Taro on what had happen in Sitio Bagjang; 11. That there was no action made by Kagawad Taro because there is already a complaint filed by Tessie against the accused for illegal entry; 12. That instead, they were told to return at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon because for the scheduled hearing for the complaints against the accused for illegal entry; 13. That at the scheduled hearing, they were able to attend, and among the attendants were the private complainant Tessie, Kagawad Taro and Alaan, CVO Alciso and barangay secretary Delia Gagooc;
4

14. That there was no threat made by the accused Rosario and Encarnacion for bodily harm against the private complainant Tessie during the hearing and that Rosario only answered the question of the barangay officials; and 15. That there is no settlement transpired in the said hearing. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES During the trial, the prosecution presented as witness the private complainant Tessie and the corroborating witnesses Kagawad Taro, Kagawad Alaan and BPLK Alciso to prove that on 17th day of June, 2000 at 11 oclock in the morning, in sitio Bagjang, barangay Capayahan, Tubod, Surigao del Norte, that the accused Rosario and Encarnacion, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping on another, threaten the private complainant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with an infliction upon the latter of a wrong amounting to a crime that is to kill her if she will make coprax to her damage and prejudice. That said incident took place in the coconut land of private complainant Tessie. And which she exhibited tax declaration and official receipt of real property tax and evidence that she was owner of the said land. In the testimony of the private complainant, the accused Rosario threaten to kill her if she will gather coprax. That the said accused was holding his bolo tied on his waist while uttering those threats. This was corroborated by witnesses Kagawad Alaan, Kagawad Taro and BPLK Alciso in their respective testimonies that both accused have in their possession bolos tied on their waist when they saw them in the barangay office. They even testified that both of them were very angry. In fact, the threat was repeated in the barangay office of Capayahan when the accused said come here and I will chop your face because I will no longer listen to the law, in the present of the Kagawad Taro, Kagawad Alaan, BPLK Alciso and the barangay secretary, of which was corroborated by them in their testimonies. They even testified that both the accused Rosario and Encarnacion have in their possession bolos tied on their waist. It included in their testimonies that both the accused were very angry, and in fact, after Rosario uttered those threats, Tessie
5

and Kagawad Taro run towards the barangay office because they were very afraid. And the witnesses further testified that Kagawad Taro instructed BPLK Alciso to remove the bolos from the both accused. On the other hand, the defense presented the accused Rosario and Encarnacion as witnesses. According to him, they did not threaten the private complainant, and in fact it was the husband of the latter, Felipe Paz who threaten to kill them. That Felipe was very angry pulled out a gain from his waist, pointed it against Rosario and said that he will shoot the accused if they will not get out of the land. And even testified that during the incident in sitio Bagjang, that their eight year-old child was in their companion. Accused Rosario also denied that he made a threat against the private complainant during the hearing and that he only answered the question of the presiding officer of the hearing. And to prove that it was really Felipe Paz who threaten to shoot them, they testified that they went to barangay office to make a complaint against Felipe but they were not entertained because there was an earlier complaint filed against them by the private complainant. They further testified that in the barangay office, they requested Kagawad Taro to search the motorcycle of Felipe because the gun was inside his motorcycle, but it was not granted because according to Kagawad Taro, they have no authority to inspect the motorcycle. This was corroborated by Kagawad Taro in the cross examination in her rebuttal testimony. And in addition, the accused pointed out that complaint file by the private complainant Tessie was for illegal entry and not for grave threat, and which is again corroborated by Kagawad Taro in the cross examination. The accused also shows evidence that he was the owner of the land where the incident took place, such evidence were the Extra Judicial Settlement and tax declarations.

THE ISSUES The main issue of the case is whether or not accused Rosario and Encarnacion are guilty of grave threat punishable under the second paragraph of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. And whether or not the proof presented by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused. And in addition to the main issues, the court is constraint to resolve whether the issue of ownership has significance in the resolution of the case of grave threat. DISCUSSION Under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code: Grave threat - 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, shall suffer: 1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. 2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition. In order to be guilty of the crime of grave threat under paragraph 2, the following elements must concur: a. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latters person, honor or property, or upon that of the latters family, of any wrong; b. That such wrong amounts to a crime; and
7

c. That the threat is no subject to a condition. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused Rosario and Encarnacion, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping on another, threaten the private complainant willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with an infliction upon the latter of a wrong amounting to a crime that is to kill her if she will gather coprax. According to the prosecution, the offender threatens private complainant Tessie with an infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime that is to kill the latter not only once but twice; the first is in sitio Bagjang where the only witnesses are the spouses Tessie and Felipe Paz, and the second was in the presence of Kagawad Taro, Kagawad Alaan, BPLK Alciso and the barangay secretary. However, during the cross-examination of the private complainant Tessie, the latter testified that it is because of the first threat that prompted her to file a case for grave threat. As transcribed in the stenographic note when the defense ask: Q: It was because of those threats that you filed this case againstthe accused Rosario Ranario and Encarnacion Labad? Yes, Your Honor. And it was because of those threats that you executed an affidavit to support your complaint against the two accused? Yes, Your Honor.

A: Q:

A:

Thus, the resolution of the case should be focused on the allege threat occurred in sitio Bagjang. Accordingly, the court finds no sufficient proof that the accused threatens private complainant. During the incident, aside from the spouses Paz, there is no other person that will corroborate their claim that accused threaten to kill them. And the fact that the compliant first filed by the private complainant was for illegal entry, it belies their claim of grave
8

threat against the two accused. Should the threat be really uttered by the accused against the life of the private complainant, they should have immediately pursued such complaint in addition to the illegal entry. Granting that there was really threatening words uttered by the two accused, it was because they were very angry and it was done during their heated argument with the spouses Tessie and Felipe Paz. And those words just came out of their mouth without intention to execute such threat. Besides if there was really intention to execute such threat, the spouses Paz should not just stand, Felipe should have attempted to defend Tessie. As when the defense counsel asks in the cross-examination of the witness Tessie: Q: A: Did your husband attempt to defend you when that threat was made? No, were just standing side by side.

Thus, the court is constraint to believe that the accused would indeed capable of executing such threat or the threat could put imminent danger to the life of spouses Paz. It was also pointed out that Felipe Paz was a fireman and that the accused alleged that it was Felipe who indeed threaten them by pointing a gun against them, and that the accused failed to file a complaint against Felipe because they were not entertained because of the prior complaint filed against them by the private complainant, which was corroborated in the cross examination of Kagawad Taro when the accused Rosario asked the former to inspect the vehicle of Felipe to search for a firearm. However, the request was denied because according to Kagawad Taro, they cannot do the search because there is no search warrant. The fact that the accused requested for a search of a firearm allegedly in the motorcycle of Felipe, there is a circumstantial proof that Felipe and not the accused made a threat against the latter. And lastly, on the issue of ownership, the court is not competent to rule on such issue as it is beyond its jurisdiction, however as to its significance in the case of grave threat, the court
9

finds it is more inclined in favor of the accused, because if the threat was really proven to have been committed by the accused, such will mitigate or justify its action in order to protect what he believe his property. It is just and proper for the owner to resort to means to protect his property, or what he believes to be his property. Due to the aforementioned premise and the prosecutions failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides: Sec. 2.Proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. To warrant conviction, "The rule is clear. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the defense. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has never committed, let alone when no less than the capital punishment is imposed, would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated."1 "On the whole then, the scanty evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees the accused. It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt."2 WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the court renders judgment acquitting the accused Rosario Ranario and Encarnacion Labad from the crime of Grave Threat under paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. SO ORDERED.
1 2

People v. Manzano, 227 SCRA 780, 787 [1993]. People v. Dismuke, 234 SCRA 51, 61 [1994], citing People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil. 107 [1971]; People v. Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992].
10

CLAYTON EDGAR M. DELGADO Presiding Judge

11