The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that grave threats under the Revised Penal Code may be committed not only through words or writing, but also through non-verbal gestures, as long as these acts are intended to intimidate or instill fear in another person.
In a decision promulgated by its Third Division on November 19, 2025 and released on Friday, the high tribunal clarified that the scope of grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines includes conduct that clearly conveys a threatening message, even without spoken or written language.
The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, stressed that what matters in determining liability is the intent to intimidate and the communication of fear, not the form of expression used.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed against Belgian architect Gregory Israel, who was accused of making threatening gestures during a road altercation in 2017. According to the records, Israel allegedly pointed his fingers at one complainant’s head as if pulling a gun trigger and later moved his hand across his neck, mimicking a beheading motion.
The incident occurred after a near-collision between Israel’s motorcycle and a vehicle carrying the complainants, who were business partners and were on their way home from the airport at the time.
Prosecutors claimed that the gestures were made in the context of a heated confrontation linked to a construction project dispute. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the required criminal intent with moral certainty.
The tribunal emphasized that for an act to constitute grave threats, there must be a deliberate intent to threaten and persistence in carrying out the intimidation. It also noted that while verbal or written threats are more commonly prosecuted, gestures may likewise fall within the ambit of Article 282 when they clearly communicate a serious threat.
“Threats without persistence are not considered grave threats under Article 282,” the Court said in its 16-page ruling, underscoring that not all alarming conduct automatically rises to criminal liability.
The Court further explained that the provision, rooted in the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, covers a wide range of human behavior through which intimidation may be expressed, including non-verbal acts.
Ultimately, Israel was acquitted after the Court ruled that the necessary elements of grave threats were not sufficiently proven.
The decision also served as a reminder for lower courts to carefully assess both the nature of alleged threatening acts and the intent behind them, whether expressed verbally, in writing, or through gestures.
