G.R. No. 249322, September 14, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Juvenal Azurin y Blanquera, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Juvenal Azurin y Blanquera, then Regional Director of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Regional Office No. 2, was charged with Grave Threats under Article 282(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on November 13, 2013, Azurin, a public officer committing the offense in relation to his office and taking advantage of his position, willfully threatened his subordinate, Jaime J. Clave, without condition, by uttering during a telephone conversation: “Putang-ina mo Clave ha, putang-ina mo Bobot, papatayin kita,” which caused Clave to fear for his life, believing Azurin had the capacity to carry out the threat. Azurin pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, primarily through Clave’s testimony, stated that Azurin called him around midnight on November 13, 2013. During the call, after stating he had pieced together information from four people indicating Clave had ill feelings towards him, Azurin repeatedly said, “Clave, papatayin kita!” Clave feared for his life because Azurin, as PDEA Regional Director with an office-issued firearm, a former Navy officer, and a member of the Magdalo group, was capable of carrying out the threat. Clave reported the incident to the police, filed an administrative complaint with PDEA’s Internal Affairs, and a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. Prosecution witnesses testified about Clave recounting the threat to them and about office reassignments following the incident.
The defense’s version, through Azurin’s lone testimony, admitted he called Clave that night but only to inform him of his reassignment to Nueva Vizcaya. Azurin claimed he was upset because Clave had texted the PDEA Deputy Director General about operational fund issues. He also asserted that Clave later filed an Affidavit of Desistance.
The Sandiganbayan found Azurin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Threats, sentencing him to two months imprisonment and a P500.00 fine. Azurin appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the conversation’s substance, the evidence was hearsay, and a photograph of the call log was inadmissible. The Office of the Special Prosecutor contended Azurin used the wrong mode of appeal and that the conviction was proper.

ISSUE

1. Whether accused-appellant availed of the correct mode of appeal from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Grave Threats.

RULING

1. On the mode of appeal: The Supreme Court ruled that Azurin resorted to the proper remedy. The appeal from a Sandiganbayan judgment in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is governed by Section 1(a), Rule XI of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, which requires a notice of appeal filed with the Sandiganbayan. This special rule prevails over the general provisions of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 (the Sandiganbayan Law), which indicate a petition for review on certiorari. The Court, citing People v. Talaue, held that the Sandiganbayan Rules, being a later issuance and a special rule, control the procedure for appeals from its decisions.
2. On the conviction for Grave Threats: The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding of guilt. All elements of Grave Threats under Article 282(2) were present: (a) Azurin threatened Clave with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (killing); (b) the threat was not subject to a condition; and (c) the threat caused Clave to reasonably fear that Azurin would carry it out. The Court found Clave’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. His immediate reaction of reporting the threat and filing complaints corroborated his fear. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, though not direct witnesses to the call, provided credible corroboration of antecedent and subsequent events that supported Clave’s account. The Court rejected Azurin’s defenses, noting that the Affidavit of Desistance was not presented in evidence and that inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were minor. The photograph of the call log, while not authenticated under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, was merely corroborative and not essential to proving the crime. The threat was made in relation to Azurin’s office as it arose from an office conflict about operational funds and Clave’s reassignment, and Azurin, as Regional Director, used his position to instill fear.
The Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution were AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION regarding the penalty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Azurin was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of imprisonment of two (2) months and one (1) day.