Reyes v.

People March 28, 1969 Nature: Appeal by certiorari from CA decision affirming MTC ruling convicting Reyes of (1) Oral Defamation and (2) Grave Threats Facts: Reyes was a civilian employee in the Naval Base in Sangley Point in Cavite. He was, however, terminated in May 1961. A month later, he led a demonstration of 20 to 30 people in front of the base. They carried placards containing malicious and derogatory statements against Agustin Hallare. Col. Monzon, who was assigned in maintaining harmony in the base & the surrounding community, met them. He learned that the demo was directed to Hallare & not to the base. Hallare saw the demo and feared for his security. He asked Monzon to escort him to his residence to which Monzon agreed. They rode Monzon s car. As they passed by the demo, Monzon slowed down and told Hallare to read the placards. Upon seeing Hallare, the demonstrators rode their jeepneys and trailed Hallare up to his residence where they continued the demo. It was then that Reyes shouted Putang ina mo & Papatayin kita . The case was filed in the MTC but the prosecution moved to amend the complaint on the day of the hearing. They had the word orally removed from the complaint for grave threats. Reyes objected but it was, nonetheless, allowed. Issues: (1) WON guilty of grave threats, (2) WON guilty of oral defamation Held / Ratio: Acquitted from oral defamation. (1) Yes. The elements for grave threat are (a) the offender threaten another of inflicting a wrong upon his person, (b) the wrong amounted to a crime, and (c) the threat is NOT conditional. Evidence presented by the prosecution successfully proves these elements. The manner by which the threats were made is not an element of the crime. Hence, the deletion of the word orally from the complaint is not substantial and will not prejudice Reyes s rights nor is there a need for a second plea. Petitioner s contention that the crime should be LIGHT threats only is contradicted by the evidence. They staged a demo in the base with placards bearing derogatory statements, they persistently trailed Hallare up to his residence, and they continued the demo in front of his house clearly, the threats were made with intention to make Hallare believe that the threats will be carried out. They are not merely due to a temporary fit of anger considering that the termination happened a month earlier. (2) No. This is a usual expression intended to express anger and passion & not intended for slander. It should be viewed as part of the crime of grave threats. In a previous decision of the court (Yebra, GR. No. 14348, 1960), it said that the libelous remarks therein were more threatening than libelous. They were used merely to express passion which culminated into the principal objective of threatening the victim for which the writer should not be separately prosecuted for the crime of libel.