G.R. No. 172948 - Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corp. vs. Lim

The People of the Philippines, acting as plaintiff-appellant, charged Eduardo Ramirez, the defendant-appellee, with having orally threatened certain individuals.
The alleged threats were directed at Martina de Lara, Marcela Manucum, Lorenzo Santos, Dolores Bacalso, Anaqureta Diaz, and Eugenia de Lara.

The charges stemmed from an incident on July 28, 1955, wherein the defendant, in the heat of anger, purportedly issued oral threats.
The information recorded in the case stated that the defendant did not persist in these threats by any subsequent acts.

The defendant moved to quash the information, arguing that the crime had already prescribed under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code since the information was filed on September 27, 1955, a period exceeding 61 days from the offense.
The appellant asserted that the charged act falls under Article 282, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines grave threats, punishable by arresto mayor and a fine of up to P500.00.

The information in the case recited that the offense involved oral threats made “in the heat of anger” with no persistent follow-up, which, according to the prosecution, could be interpreted in one light as being covered under Article 282, paragraph 2.
However, Article 285, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code specifically punishes any person who, “in the heat of anger,” orally threatens another with some harm not amounting to a crime, provided that subsequent acts do not reinforce the threat, and mandates a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00.

The record does not expressly allege that the threatened harm constitutes a crime, nor does it suggest that the defendant's subsequent actions reaffirmed his initial threat.
Consequently, the factual matrix primarily describes an offense of light threats as provided under Article 285, paragraph 2.

Whether the threat given by the defendant falls under the grave threat provision of Article 282, paragraph 2 or under the light threat provision of Article 285, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the crime had already prescribed pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code due to the lapse in time between the occurrence of the offense and the filing of the information.

Whether the description of the threat—being oral and made in the heat of anger, without any indication of persistence—sufficiently supports the classification under Article 285, paragraph 2 rather than under Article 282, paragraph 2.

Whether the penalty prescribed (arresto mayor vs. arresto menor or a fine of differing amounts) is consistent with the nature of the act as properly classified under the respective articles.