Lo, Tiffany Ann Picart

4LM3

Criminal Law: Light Threats (Art. 283 & 285)

Art. 283: Light Threats A threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime,
made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article (Art. 284),
shall be punished by arresto mayor.
1

Art. 283 was taken from art. 495 of the old Penal Code. Blackmail or chantage
not falling under art.356 would be punishable under art. 283. 3In order to convict a
person who threatens another with a wrong, the commission of which does not amount
to a crime which of light threats, it must be proved that the offender has made the
threats demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful.
Blackmail is punished under this article of money is demanded under threats of
exposure.
2

Elements:

1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;

2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. That there is demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful;
4. That the offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not attained his
purpose.
5In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime.
Requires that there be a demand of money or that other condition be
imposed
Blackmailing may be punished under this provision
Art. 285: Other Light Threats The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
6

1 Essentials of Criminal Law by Sergio A.F Apostol

2 The Revised Penal Code by Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina C. Grino-Aquino
3 Fundamentals of Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio
4 Essentials of Criminal Law by Sergio A.F Apostol
5 https://www.scribd.com/doc/23322474/Criminal-Law-Art-238-365
6 Essentials of Criminal Law by Sergio A.F Apostol

1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next
preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon, or draw such weapon
in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten with some harm
not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts shows that he did not
persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of
the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Artivle 282 of this code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting
felony.
7

Art, 285 was taken from parts 2, 3 and 4 of art. 589 of the old Penal Code.

Supreme Court decisions:

1.

People vs. Hao Chao The two accused threatened to report Salustiana Dee to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue for tax evasion if she did not give them P1,000.
Salustiana gave them P1,000 in the presence of two Manila detectives, who
arrested the accused as soon as they received the said amount and who
recovered it from the,. The accused were charged with light threats.
2. 9People vs. Cervera - In the case at bar, the court of first instance seemed to
believe that defendant's acquittal in criminal case No. 682 of the municipal court,
for slight defamation, necessarily implied his acquittal for the threatening remarks
alleged in the complaint in that case, for, apart from setting forth the insults
heaped upon the complainant, it was averred therein that the accused had
added: "You will fight? (Will you fight?) Answer. I will shoot you and throw your
body into the river," and "words of similar import." The conclusion thus reached
by the court of first instance is untenable.
3. 10Pena vs. Aparicio - In this administrative complaint, the respondent lawyer is
charged with violation of Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for writing a demand letter the contents of which threatened
complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of
documents.
4. 11USA vs. Eguia & Lozano - In order to prevent further occurrences of this kind,
as far as may be done by judicial action, we are all strongly of the opinion that
the judgment of the lower court must be reversed, and that the defendant and
8

7 The Revised Penal Code by Ramon C. Aquino & Carolina C. Grino-Aquino

8 The Revised Penal Code by Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina C. Grino-Aquino
9 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/nov1969/gr_l-26395_1969.html
10 http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2009/01/extortion.html
11 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1917/oct1917/gr_l-13540_1917.html

appellant Salvador Eguia is deserving of the maximum penalty permitted by law,

and accordingly is sentenced to six months imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and that the defendant and appellant Sebastian Lozano, while culpable in a less
degree, is also deserving of an increased penalty, and accordingly is sentenced
to three months imprisonment, to pay a fine of P1,000 or to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Each defendant shall pay one-half the costs
of both instances. So ordered.
5. 12Batolawon v. Leorente - petition is Granted. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 17446 promulgated on July 31, 1995 is set aside. In
lieu thereof, the Court reverses the decision of the Regional Trial Court and
recognizes as valid the decree of divorce granted in favor of the deceased
Lorenzo N. Llorente by the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of San Diego, made final on December 4, 1952.Further, the Court
REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic
validity of Lorenzo N. Llorentes will and determination of the parties
successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions that the trial
court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the
deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court.
6. 13People vs. Fontanilla - 14In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to
prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful
aggression on the par tof the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable
element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is
established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to repel. On
December 19, 2000, in Criminal Case Nos. U-10628 and U-10629, the Regional
Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, found appellant Freddie Fontanilla guilty
of rape and imposed upon him the penalty of death.
7. 15People v. Avecilla - SC dismissed the case. Originally he could have been
convicted of illegally possessing a firearm separately from his conviction on the
killing that occurred as a consequence thereof, which happened in 1991. With
the passage of RA 8294 in 1997 amending PD1866, the possession of an
unlicensed firearm has become merely an aggravating circumstance to a murder
or homicide charge. As a general rule, penal laws have prospective effect
12 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm
13 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/147662_63.htm
14 https://www.scribd.com/doc/120920022/people-vs-fontanilla
15 https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/criminal-law-digests-february2001/

EXCEPT where the new law will be advantageous to the accused, as in this
case, sparing him of two separate convictions.
8. 16People vs. Navarra - The accused-appellants were charged and found guilty by
the RTC of illegal recruitment committed in a large scale resulting to economic
sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment.

16 https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/criminal-law-digests-february2001/