Case Digest: Paera vs People GR 181626 30 May 2011

             Article 282: Grave Threats | Criminal Law

Facts:

As punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental, petitioner Santiago Paera allocated his constituents’ use of communal water coming from a communal tank by limiting distribution to the residents of Mampas, Bacong. The tank sits on a land located in the neighboring barangay of Mampas, Valencia and owned by complainant Vicente Darong, father of complainant Indalecio Darong. Despite petitioner’s scheme, Indalecio continued drawing water from the tank. On 7 April 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of the water distribution scheme and cut Indalecio’s access.

The following day, petitioner inspected the tank after constituents complained of water supply interruption. Petitioner discovered a tap from the main line which he promptly disconnected. To stem the flow of water from the ensuing leak, petitioner, using a borrowed bolo, fashioned a wooden plug. It was at this point when Indalecio arrived. What happened next is contested by the parties.

According to the prosecution, petitioner, without any warning, picked-up his bolo and charged towards Indalecio, shouting "Patyon tikaw!" (I will kill you!). Indalecio ran for safety, passing along the way his wife, Diosetea Darong who had followed him to the water tank. Upon seeing petitioner, Diosetea inquired what was the matter. Instead of replying, petitioner shouted "Wala koy gipili, bisag babaye ka, patyon tikaw!" ("I don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you!"). Diosetea similarly scampered and sought refuge in the nearby house of a relative. Unable to pursue Diosetea, petitioner turned his attention back to Indalecio. As petitioner chased Indalecio, he passed Vicente, and, recognizing the latter, repeatedly thrust his bolo towards him, shouting "Bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!" ("Even if you are old, I will crack open your skull!").

Defense:

It was Indalecio who threatened petioner with a bolo, angrily inquiring why petitioner had severed his water connection. This left petitioner with no choice but to take a defensive stance using the borrowed bolo, prompting Indalecio to scamper.

MTC, RTC, CA:  Santiago Paera guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

Issues: 

(i) WoN petitioner should be guilty of "continued complex crime" of Grave Threats.

(ii) WoN there are a justifying circumstances of lawful exercise of duty and defense of stranger.

Held:

(i) NO. Petitioner Liable for Three Counts of Grave Threats.

The nature of the crime of Grave Threats and the proper application of the concepts of continued and complex crimes preclude the adoption of petitioner’s theory.

Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats "any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person x x x of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime[.]" This felony is consummated "as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened."

Applying these parameters, it is clear that petitioner’s threat to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente’s skull are wrongs on the person amounting to (at the very least) homicide and serious physical injuries as penalized under the RPC. These threats were consummated as soon as Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente heard petitioner utter his threatening remarks. Having spoken the threats at different points in time to these three individuals, albeit in rapid succession, petitioner incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

Petitioner’s theory fusing his liability to one count of Grave Threats because he only had "a single mental resolution, a single impulse, and single intent" to threaten the Darongs assumes a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente’s presence near the water tank in the morning of 8 April 1999. The records, however, belie this assumption. Thus, in the case of Indalecio, petitioner was as much surprised to see Indalecio as the latter was in seeing petitioner when they chanced upon each other near the water tank. Similarly, petitioner came across Diosetea as he was chasing Indalecio who had scampered for safety. Lastly, petitioner crossed paths with Vicente while running after Indalecio. Indeed, petitioner went to the water tank not to execute his "single intent" to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap. Not having known in advance of the Darongs’ presence near the water tank at the time in question, petitioner could not have formed any intent to threaten any of them until shortly before he inadvertently came across each of them.

Similarly, petitioner’s intent to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente with bodily harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims.

Indeed, petitioner’s theory holds water only if the facts are altered – that is, he threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at the same place and at the same time. 

(ii) NO. No Justifying Circumstances Attended Petitioner’s Commission of Grave Threats

There is likewise no merit in petitioner’s claim of having acted to "defend and protect the water rights of his constituents" in the lawful exercise of his office as punong barangay. 

Not one of the Darongs committed acts of aggression against third parties’ rights when petitioner successively threatened them with bodily harm. Indeed, all of them were performing ordinary, peaceful acts – Indalecio was standing near the water tank, Diosetea was walking towards Indalecio and Vicente was standing in the vegetable garden a few meters away. With the element of unlawful aggression absent, inquiry on the reasonableness of the means petitioner used to prevent or repel it is rendered irrelevant. As for the third requisite, the records more than support the conclusion that petitioner acted with resentment, borne out of the Darongs’ repeated refusal to follow his water distribution scheme, causing him to lose perspective and angrily threaten the Darongs with bodily harm.

Lastly, the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or exercise of office under the 5th paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC lies upon proof that the offense committed was the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of office. Arguably, petitioner acted in the performance of his duty to "ensure delivery of basic services" when he barred the Darongs’ access to the communal water tank. Nevertheless, petitioner exceeded the bounds of his office when he successively chased the Darongs with a bladed weapon, threatening harm on their persons, for violating his order. A number of options constituting lawful and due discharge of his office lay before petitioner and his resort to any of them would have spared him from criminal liability. His failure to do so places his actions outside of the ambit of criminally immune official conduct. Petitioner ought to know that no amount of concern for the delivery of services justifies use by local elective officials of violence or threats of violence.

Recit Version: 

Facts:   

Santiago Paera, the punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong in Negros Oriental, implemented a water distribution system for the residents of Mampas, Bacong, using a communal tank located in the neighboring barangay owned by Vicente Darong. However, Indalecio Darong, despite being aware of the scheme, continued to draw water from the tank. On 7 April 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of the water distribution scheme and cut Indalecio’s access.

The following day, petitioner inspected the tank after constituents complained of water supply interruption. Petitioner discovered a tap from the main line which he promptly disconnected. 

To stop the water leak, he fashioned a wooden plug using a borrowed bolo. At that moment, Indalecio arrived. According to the prosecution, without warning, Santiago charged towards Indalecio with his bolo, threatening to kill him. Indalecio fled, passing his wife Diosetea, who asked what was happening. Instead of answering, Santiago threatened to kill her as well. Diosetea sought refuge, and Santiago continued to pursue Indalecio, threatening Vicente along the way.

Defense:

It was Indalecio who threatened petioner with a bolo, angrily inquiring why petitioner had severed his water connection. This left petitioner with no choice but to take a defensive stance using the borrowed bolo, prompting Indalecio to scamper.

MTC, RTC, CA:  Santiago Paera guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

Issues: 

(i) WoN petitioner should be guilty of "continued complex crime" of Grave Threats.

(ii) WoN there are a justifying circumstances of lawful exercise of duty and defense of stranger.

Held:

(i) NO. Petitioner Liable for Three Counts of Grave Threats. 

This felony is consummated "as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened."

Applying these parameters, it is clear that petitioner’s threat to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente’s skull are wrongs on the person amounting to (at the very least) homicide and serious physical injuries as penalized under the RPC. These threats were consummated as soon as Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente heard petitioner utter his threatening remarks. Having spoken the threats at different points in time to these three individuals, albeit in rapid succession, petitioner incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

Petitioner went to the water tank not to execute his "single intent" to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap. Not having known in advance of the Darongs’ presence near the water tank at the time in question, petitioner could not have formed any intent to threaten any of them until shortly before he inadvertently came across each of them.

Petitioner’s intent to threaten Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente with bodily harm arose only when he chanced upon each of his victims.

Indeed, petitioner’s theory holds water only if the facts are altered – that is, he threatened Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente at the same place and at the same time. 

(ii) NO. No Justifying Circumstances Attended Petitioner’s Commission of Grave Threats

Not one of the Darongs committed acts of aggression against third parties’ rights when petitioner successively threatened them with bodily harm. Indeed, all of them were performing ordinary, peaceful acts – Indalecio was standing near the water tank, Diosetea was walking towards Indalecio and Vicente was standing in the vegetable garden a few meters away. With the element of unlawful aggression absent, inquiry on the reasonableness of the means petitioner used to prevent or repel it is rendered irrelevant.  

Arguably, petitioner acted in the performance of his duty to "ensure delivery of basic services" when he barred the Darongs’ access to the communal water tank. Nevertheless, petitioner exceeded the bounds of his office when he successively chased the Darongs with a bladed weapon, threatening harm on their persons, for violating his order.