G.R. No. 181626 ; May 30, 2011
SANTIAGO PAERA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Santiago Paera, the punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental, implemented a water distribution scheme limiting the use of a communal water tank to his constituents. The tank was located on land in a neighboring barangay owned by Vicente Darong, whose son, Indalecio Darong, continued to draw water. On April 7, 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of the scheme and cut his access. The next day, petitioner went to inspect the tank after complaints of water interruption, discovered an unauthorized tap, and disconnected it. While fashioning a wooden plug with a bolo to stop a leak, Indalecio arrived. According to the prosecution, petitioner, without warning, picked up the bolo, charged at Indalecio, and shouted, “Patyon tikaw!” (I will kill you!). Indalecio ran. Petitioner then encountered Indalecio’s wife, Diosetea Darong, and shouted at her, “Wala koy gipili, bisag babaye ka, patyon tikaw!” (I don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you!). As petitioner continued chasing Indalecio, he passed Vicente Darong, repeatedly thrust his bolo towards him, and shouted, “Bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!” (Even if you are old, I will crack open your skull!). Petitioner’s defense was that Indalecio threatened him first with a bolo, forcing him to take a defensive stance. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) found petitioner guilty of three counts of Grave Threats. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction. On appeal to the Supreme Court, petitioner abandoned his denial and conceded liability but only for a single count of a “continued complex crime” of Grave Threats. He also argued for the dismissal of the charge involving Vicente Darong due to Vicente’s failure to testify, and alternatively claimed the justifying circumstances of defense of the property of strangers and lawful performance of duty.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, affirming the RTC’s decision and finding petitioner guilty of three separate counts of Grave Threats. The Court held that the crime of Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code is consummated as soon as the threat comes to the knowledge of the person threatened. Petitioner uttered distinct threats at different points in time to three different individuals—Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente—thereby incurring three separate criminal liabilities. The Court rejected petitioner’s theory of a “continued crime” (delito continuado), which requires a series of acts arising from a single criminal intent. The records showed petitioner had no foreknowledge of the victims’ presence at the water tank; his intent to threaten each arose only when he chanced upon them individually. Thus, there was no single criminal resolution to support a continued crime. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s claim for dismissal of Vicente’s charge, noting the issue was not raised during trial and that the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the threat against Vicente. Finally, the Court rejected the claimed justifying circumstances, finding no unlawful aggression on the part of the Darongs to warrant defense of stranger’s property, and no regularity in petitioner’s performance of duty, as his actions exceeded the lawful exercise of his authority.