4/12/2016

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

TodayisTuesday,April12,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.Nos.L21528andL21529March28,1969
ROSAUROREYES,petitioner,
vs.
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondent.
JoseF.Maacopforpetitioner.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralArturoA.Alafriz,AssistantSolicitorGeneralPacificoP.deCastroandSolicitor
AntonioM.Martinezforrespondent.
MAKALINTAL,J.:
This case is before us on appeal by certiorari, from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that a the
municipal court of Cavite City, convicting Rosauro Reyes of the crimes of grave threats and grave oral
defamation,andsentencinghim,inthefirstcase(CriminalCaseNo.2594),tofour(4)monthsandten(10)days
ofarrestomayorandtopayafineofP300,withsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandinthesecond
case(CriminalCaseNo.2595),toanindeterminatepenaltyoffromfour(4)monthsofarrestomayortoone(1)
yearandeight(8)monthsofprisoncorreccionalandtopayAgustinHallarethesumofP800asmoraldamages,
withcostsinbothcases.
The petitioner herein, Rosauro Reyes, was a former civilian employee of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point,
CaviteCity,whoseserviceswereterminatedonMay6,1961.IntheafternoonofJune6,1961,heledagroupof
about20to30personsinademonstrationstagedinfrontofthemaingateoftheUnitedStatesNavalStationat
Sangley Point. They carried placards bearing statements such as, "Agustin, mamatay ka" "To, alla boss con
Nolan" "Frank do not be a common funk" "Agustin, mamamatay ka rin" "Agustin, Nolan for you" "Agustin alla
bos con Nolan" "Agustin, dillega, el dia di quida rin bo chiquiting" and others. The base commander, Capt.
McAllister, called up Col. Patricia Monzon, who as Philippine Military Liaison Officer at Sangley Point was in
chargeofpreservingharmoniousrelationsbetweenpersonnelofthenavalstationandthecivilianpopulationof
Cavite City. Capt. McAllister requested Col. Monzon to join him at the main gate of the base to meet the
demonstrators. Col. Monzon went to the place and talked to Rosauro Reyes and one Luis Buenaventura upon
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

1/6

4/12/2016

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

learning that the demonstration was not directed against the naval station but against Agustin Hallare and a
certainFrankNolanfortheirhavingallegedlycausedthedismissalofRosauroReyesfromtheNavyExchange,
Col.MonzonsuggestedtothemtodemonstrateinfrontofHallare'sresidence,buttheytoldhimthattheywould
likethepeopleinthestationtoknowhowtheyfeltaboutHallareandNolan.Theyassuredhim,however,thatthey
didnotintendtouseviolence,as"theyjustwantedtoblowoffsteam."
AtthattimeAgustinHallarewasinhisofficeinsidethenavalstation.Whenhelearnedaboutthedemonstration
he became apprehensive about his safety, so he sought Col. Monzon's protection. The colonel thereupon
escorted Hallare, his brother, and another person in going out of the station, using his (Monzon's) car for the
purpose. Once outside, Col. Monzon purpose slowed down to accommodate the request of Reyes. He told
Hallaretotakeagoodlookatthedemonstratorsandattheplacardstheywerecarrying.Whenthedemonstrators
sawHallaretheyshouted,"MabuhaysiAgustin."Thentheyboardedtheirjeepsandfollowedthecar.Onejeep
overtookpassedthecarwhiletheothertoledbehind.AfterHallareandhiscompanionshadalightedinfrontof
hisresidenceat967BurgosSt.,CaviteCity,Col.Monzonspedaway.
ThethreejeepscarryingthedemonstratorsparkedinfrontofHallare'sresidenceafterhavinggonebyittwice
RosauroReyesgotoffhisjeepandpostedhimselfatthegate,andwithhisrighthandinsidehispocketandhis
left holding the gatedoor, he shouted repeatedly, "Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin
lumabas ka, papatayin kita." Thereafter, he boarded his jeep and the motorcade left the premises. Meanwhile,
Hallare,frightenedbythedemeanorofReyesandtheotherdemonstrators,stayedinsidethehouse.
l w p h i1 . e t

OnthebasisoftheforegoingeventsRosauroReyeswaschargedonJuly24and25,1961withgravethreats
andgraveoraldefamation,respectively(CriminalCasesNos.2594and2595,MunicipalCourtofCaviteCity),as
follows
The undersigned City Fiscal of the City of Cavite accuses Rosauro Reyes of the crime of
Grave Threats, as defined by Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by
paragraph2ofthesameArticle,committedasfollows:
ThatonoraboutJune6,1961,intheCityofCavite,RepublicofthePhilippinesandwithinthe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniously,orallythreatentokill,oneAgustinHallare.
Contrarytolaw.
CaviteCity,July24,1961.
DEOGRACIASS.SOLIS
CityFiscal
BY:(SGD.)BUENN.GUTIERREZ
SpecialCounsel
The undersigned complainant, after being duly sworn to an oath in accordance with law,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

2/6

4/12/2016

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

accusesRosauroReyesofthecrimeofGraveOralDefamation,asdefinedandpenalizedby
Article358oftheRevisedPenalCode,committedasfollows:
ThatonoraboutJune6,1961,intheCityofCavite,RepublicofthePhilippinesandwithinthe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without any justifiable motive
but with the intention to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt to the undersigned
complainant, in the presence of and within hearing of several persons, did then and there,
willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyuttertotheundersignedcomplainantthefollowinginsulting
andseriousdefamatoryremarks,towit:"AGUSIN,PUTANGINAMO".whichiftranslatedinto
Englishareasfollows:"Agustin,Yourmotherisawhore."
Contrarytolaw.
CaviteCity,July25,1961.
(SGD.)AGUSTINHALLARE
Complainant
Subscribed and sworn to before me this. 25th day of July, 1961, in the City of Cavite,
Philippines.
(SGD.)BUENN.GUTIERREZ
SpecialCounsel
Uponarraignment,theaccusedpleadednotguiltytobothchargesandthecasesweresetforjointtrial.Onthe
dayofthehearingtheprosecutionmovedtoamendtheinformationinCriminalCaseNo.2594forgravethreats
by deleting therefrom the word "orally". The defense counsel objected to the motion on the ground that the
accusedhadalreadybeenarraignedontheoriginalinformationandthattheamendment"wouldaffectmaterially
theinterestoftheaccused."Nevertheless,theamendmentwasallowedandthejointtrialproceeded.
From the judgment of conviction the accused appeal to the Court of Appeals, which returned a verdict of
affirmance.Amotionforreconsiderationhavingbeendenied,theaccusedbroughtthisappealbycertiorari.
PetitioneraversthattheCourtofAppealserred:(1)inaffirmingtheproceedingsinthelowercourtallowingthe
substantial amendment of the information for grave threats after petitioner had been arraigned on the original
information(2)inproceedingwiththetrialofthecaseofgravethreatswithoutfirstrequiringpetitionertoenterhis
pleaontheamendedinformation(3)inconvictingpetitionerofbothoffenseswhenhecouldlegallybeconvicted
of only one offense, thereby putting him in jeopardy of being penalized twice for the same offense (4) in
convictingpetitionerofgravethreatswhentheevidenceadducedandconsideredbythecourttendtoestablish
theoffenseoflightthreatsonlyand(5)inconvictingpetitionerofgraveoraldefamationwhentheevidencetend
toestablishthatofsimpleslanderonly.
Onthefirsterrorassigned,theruleisthataftertheaccusedhaspleadedtheinformationmaybeamendedasto
allmattersofformbyleaveandatthediscretionofthecourtwhenthesamecanbedonewithoutprejudicetothe
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

3/6

4/12/2016

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

rights of the defendant (Section 13, Rule 110, New Rules of Court). Amendments that touch upon matters of
substancecannotbepermittedafterthepleaisentered.
Afteracarefulconsiderationoftheoriginalinformation,wefindthatalltheelementsofthecrimeofgravethreats
as defined in Article 282 1 of the Revised Penal Code and penalized by its paragraph 2 were alleged therein
namely: (1) that the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong (2) that
suchwrongamountedtoacrimeand(3)thatthethreatwasnotsubjecttoacondition.Hence,petitionercould
havebeenconvictedthereunder.Itistobenotedthatundertheaforementionedprovisiontheparticularmanner
inwhichthethreatismadenotaqualifyingingredientoftheoffense,suchthatthedeletionoftheword"orally"did
notaffectthenatureandessenceofthecrimeaschargedoriginally.Neitherdiditchangethebasictheoryofthe
prosecution that the accused threatened to kill Rosauro Reyes so as to require the petitioner to undergo any
materialchangeormodificationinhisdefense.Contrarytohisclaim,madewiththeconcurrenceoftheSolicitor
General,petitionerwasnotexposedaftertheamendmenttothedangerofconvictionunderparagraph1ofArticle
282, which provides for a different penalty, since there was no allegation in the amended information that the
threatwasmadesubjecttoacondition.Inourviewthedeletionoftheword"orally"waseffectedinordertomake
theinformationconformabletotheevidencetobepresentedduringthetrial.Itwasmerelyaformalamendment
whichinnowayprejudicedpetitioner'srights.
Petitionernextcontendsthatevenassumingthattheamendmentwasproperlyallowed,thetrialcourtcommitted
a reversible error in proceeding with the trial on the merits without first requiring him to enter his plea to the
amended information. Considering, however, that the amendment was not substantial, no second plea was
necessaryatall.
Thethirdandfourthissuesarerelatedandwillbediscussedtogether.Petitioneraversthattheappellatecourt
erred in affirming the decision of the trial court erred in affirming him of grave threats and of grave oral
defamationwhenhecouldlegallybeconvictedofonlyoneoffense,andinconvictinghimofgravethreatsatall
whentheevidenceadducedandconsideredbythecourtindicatesthecommissionoflightthreatsonly.
ThedemonstrationledbypetitionerAgustinHallareinfrontofthemaingateofthenavalstationthefactthat
placardswiththreateningstatementswerecarriedbythedemonstratorstheirpersistenceintrailingHallareina
motorcadeuptohisresidenceandthedemonstrationconductedinfrontthereof,culminatinginrepeatedthreats
flungbypetitionerinaloudvoice,giverisetoonlyoneconclusion:thatthethreatsweremade"withthedeliberate
purposeofcreatinginthemindofthepersonthreatenedthebeliefthatthethreatwouldbecarriedintoeffect."2
Indeed,HallarebecamesoapprehensiveofhissafetythathesoughttheprotectionofCol.Monzon,whohadto
escorthimhome,whereinhestayedwhilethedemonstrationwasgoingon.Itcannotbedeniedthatthethreats
were made deliberately and not merely in a temporary fit of anger, motivated as they were by the dismissal of
petitioner one month before the incident. We, therefore, hold that the appellate court was correct in upholding
petitioner'sconvictionfortheoffenseofgravethreats.
The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words, "Agustin, putang ina mo". This is a
commonenoughexpressioninthedialectthatisoftenemployed,notreallytoslanderbutrathertoexpressanger
ordispleasure.Itisseldom,ifever,takeninitsliteralsensebythehearer,thatis,asareflectiononthevirtuesof
a mother. In the instant case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by appellant against Agustin
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

4/6

4/12/2016

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

Hallare,evidentlytomakethesamemoreemphatic.InthecaseofYebra,G.R.No.L14348,Sept.30,1960,this
Courtsaid:
The letter containing the allegedly libelous remarks is more threatening than libelous and the intent to
threatenistheprincipalaimandobjecttotheletter.Thelibelousremarkscontainedintheletter,ifsothey
beconsidered,aremerelypreparatoryremarksculminatinginthefinalthreat.Inotherwords,thelibelous
remarksexpressthebeatofpassionwhichengulfsthewriteroftheletter,whichheatofpassioninthelatter
partoftheletterculminatesintoathreat.Thisisthemoreimportantandseriousoffensecommittedbythe
accused.UnderthecircumstancestheCourtbelieves,afterthestudyofthewholeletter,thattheoffense
committedthereinisclearlyandprincipallythatofthreatsandthatthestatementsthereinderogatorytothe
person named do not constitute an independent crime of libel, for which the writer maybe prosecuted
separately from the threats and which should be considered as part of the more important offense of
threats.
Theforegoingrulingapplieswithequalforcetothefactsofthepresentcase.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyreversedandpetitionerisacquitted,withcostsde oficio,
insofar as Criminal Case No. 2595 of the Court a quo (for oral defamation) is concerned and affirmed with
respecttoCriminalCaseNo.2594,forgravethreats,withcostsagainstpetitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Santos, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,
concur.
CastroandCapistrano,JJ.,tooknopart.
Footnotes
1ART. 282. Gravethreats. Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person,

honororpropertyofthelatterorofhisfamilyofanywrongamountingtoacrime,shallsuffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime he 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
offendershallnothaveattainedhispurpose,thepenaltylowerbytwodegreesshallbeimposed.
Ifthethreatmadeinwritingorthroughamiddleman,thepenaltyshallbeimposedinitsmaximum
period.
2.Thepenaltyofarrestomayorandafinenotexceeding500pesos,ifthethreatshallnothavebeen
madesubjecttoacondition.
2U.S.vs.Sevilla,1Phil.143U.S.vs.Paguirigan,14Phil.450.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

5/6

4/12/2016

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/mar1969/gr_l2152829_1969.html

G.R.No.L21528&L21529

6/6