1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR COURT
PASIG CITY

ISIDRO LOBERIANO CARDINAS,

COMPLAINANT

--VERSUS-- I.S. NO. XV-14-1NQ-

19L-01357
FOR: THREAT

NOEL SIMON BORJA BOCALING,

RESPONDENT
x--------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
FOR THE COMPLAINANT

COMES NOW the complainant, by counsel, and to this

Honorable Office, most respectfully submits his Memorandum pursuant
to the Order issued by Investigating Prosecutor Alvin Joseph Porte.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is a Complaint for Threat filed last December 6, 2019.

After this case was reviewed by Investigating Prosecutor Alvin

Joseph Porte and preliminary investigation was set on December 9 and
16 , 2019, this Honorable Investigating Prosecutor ordered that this
Memorandum be filed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 2

In a nutshell, the facts of this case are as follows:

At two in the afternoon of December 5, 2019, complainant Isidro

Loberiano Cardinas was cruising, as a GRAB driver in a Toyota Vios

with plate number NBU 2665, along Shaw Boulevard in Pasig City; at

that very moment Complainant noticed a silver-colored car at the back

which tried to overtake his car and strained to take a left. It was found

out later that the said car is registered under the name of respondent

Noel Simon Borja Bocaling.

The respondent succeeded in overtaking complainant’s car from

the left, and respondent suddenly blocked complainant’s way repeatedly

until they arrived at a traffic light at Brgy. Oranbo, Pasig City. Because of

the said incident, Complainant alighted, headed over respondent’s car

and knocked at the widow at the driver’s side of the said vehicle.

Complainant did this to ask why respondent has repetitively cut and

blocked his way.

When the respondent opened the glass window of the car,

respondent aimed a gun at the complainant and threatened the

complainant while shouting over and over "ANO, MATAPANG KA?”.

After being shocked and traumatized by the actions of the

respondent and of pointing a gun at him, complainant went to the front

of his car to compose himself. A certain Albert N. Monera, Barangay

Tanod (Barangay Security Forvce) at Barangay Capitol, saw them and

helped complainant in getting hold of the driver’s license of the

respondent. While the Barangay Tanod and respondent were conversing,

 3

complainant blocked his car in front of respondent’s car so the latter

couldn't escape. After which complainant called his wife and, she arrived

at the place of the incident with the Brgy. Kapitolyo Security Force and

PCP 10 led by Pat Arnel Penolio which resulted in the arrest of the

respondent. Recovered from respondent’s possession were one (1) caliber

9mm Beretta Pistol with Serial No. PX4663M and two (2) magazines

loaded with 29 pieces of ammunition.

Subsequently, arrested suspect together with the recovered

pieces of evidence were brought to this office for filing of appropriate

charges.

Hence, this case.

ISSUE

Whether or not Respondent NOEL SIMON BORJA BOCALING may be

charged with the crime of Grave Threats under Article 282, Chapter 2,
and Section 3 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

DISCUSSION

The facts establish a cause of action for

Grave threats.

Threat is defined as “Declaration of an intention to inflict a future

wrong upon the person, honor or property of another or the latter’s
 4

family. The acts or words must be so efficacious as to amount to moral

pressure and thus produces fear, or mental disturbance.”

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides in Article 282,

Chapter 2, Section 3 defines Grave Threats as committed by “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.”

Taking into consideration the abovementioned definition and

provision of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines in conjunction
with the facts of this criminal complaint, there is no denying that indeed
respondent is guilty thereof.

Respondent’s act of aiming a gun at the complainant and

threatening the latter while shouting over and over "ANO, MATAPANG
KA?” are acts which declares an intention to inflict a future wrong upon
the person of the complainant. The aiming of a gun and the shouting
repeatedly of the words, "ANO, MATAPANG KA?”, are efficacious enough
as to amount to moral pressure on the part of the complainant and thus
produces fear, or mental disturbance, which also imperil the
Complainant with the infliction upon his person a wrong amounting to a
crime

There is no truth to the statement that it was the complainant who

“confronted” the respondent. Complainant merely alighted from his vehicle in
order to inquire why the respondent repeatedly tried to cut and block his way.
There was no intention on the part of the complainant to brazen out and
“violently” confront the respondent. A mere knock on the car is not considered
violent or anything which tantamounts to hostility to respondent.

The respondent merely is trying to twist what really transpired that day.
He is making it appear that Complainant was the one hostile to the
respondent. This does not jive to what respondent has admitted in his
counter-affidavit. The fact remains that respondent declared to the
complainant that he was carrying with him the subject gun by informing him
 5

about it,” in the hope that that would make him stop from violently pounding
on (my) vehicle”.

This act alone is enough threat that admits respondent’s commission of

the crime of threat. The purpose of the respondent in informing the
complainant is enough to instill into the mind of the complainant of the
infliction upon his person a wrong amounting to a crime of homicide or
physical injuries and is efficacious enough as to amount to moral pressure
and thus produces fear, or mental disturbance on the part of the
complainant.

It is also highly implausible that respondent merely shouted those

words and simply informed the complainant of his carrying of a gun
without even pointing the said gun at the complainant.

It may be true that the subject firearm was placed inside a carrying
bag at the time of his arrest. Any person who knows that he has just
committed a crime would try to hide evidence that would implicate him
further of a crime. This is just human defense mechanism at work.
Respondent knows that he has committed a crime and is in danger of
being arrested when he saw complainant call his wife and when the
police and Barangay Security Force started to arrive into the scene. At
this very moment, it is but natural for the respondent to hide anything
that would incriminate him, hence he hid the gun and the magazines
inside the carrying bag.

Considering what transpired between complainant and

respondent, respondent’s act of pointing a gun at complainant clearly
enounces a threat to kill or to inflict serious physical injury on his
person. Taken in the context of the surrounding circumstances, the
uttered words or the shouting repeatedly of the words, "ANO, MATAPANG
KA?” do not go against the threat to kill or to inflict serious injury
evinced by respondent’s accompanying act.

Given the surrounding circumstances, the offense committed falls

under Article 282, par. 2 (grave threats) since: (1) killing or shooting
 6

someone amounts to a crime, and (2) the threat to kill was not subject to
a condition.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.