Case Summary (G.R. No. 143377)
Trial Court Findings
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found Paera guilty of three counts of Grave Threats under Article 282 RPC, basing its conviction on the Darongs’ consistent testimonies and rejecting Paera’s denial as uncorroborated and self-serving.
Regional Trial Court Decision
On appeal, the RTC sustained the MCTC’s factual findings and motive analysis, deeming the prosecution’s witnesses clear and credible and again dismissing Paera’s defense.
Issues on Appeal
Paera concedes liability but urges:
- That the three threats constitute a single “continued crime.”
- Dismissal of Vicente’s complaint for lack of confrontation.
- Justification under defense of stranger (Art. 11(3) RPC) and lawful performance of duty (Art. 11(5) RPC).
Procedural Due Process Consideration
The Supreme Court notes that raising new theories at this stage violates due process by surprising the opposing party and complicating judicial analysis. Nonetheless, in light of Paera’s liberty interest and partial OSG concurrence, the Court addresses his contentions on the merits.
Liability for Multiple Counts of Grave Threats
Under Article 282, a threat is consummated once known by the victim. Paera’s separate utterances to Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente, though close in time, gave rise to three distinct offenses upon each disclosure.
Application of Continued and Complex Crime Doctrine
Paera’s invocation of delito continuado fails for lack of foreknowledge of the victims’ presence and intent formed only upon each encounter. Likewise, complex crime treatment under Article 48 RPC is inapplicable because Paera did not commit one act encompassing multiple felonies nor use one offense as a means to another.
Proof of Grave Threats Against Vicente Darong
Despite Vicente’s non-testimony (due to illness), his threats were proven by four credible witnesses. Paera’s confrontation-right claim is unfounded as he cross-examined available witnesses and no statute mandates the private complainant’s appearance.
Justifying Circumstances: Defense of Stranger and Per
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143377)
Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Santiago Paera filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City’s decision affirming the Municipal Circuit Trial Court’s (MCTC) conviction of petitioner for three counts of Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- MCTC convicted petitioner and imposed, for each count, the penalty of two months and one day to four months of arresto mayor and a fine of ₱500.00.
- On appeal, the RTC upheld the MCTC’s findings. Petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court, conceding liability for a single count of a “continued complex crime” of Grave Threats and raising new defenses of dismissal for lack of complainant testimony and justifying circumstances under Article 11, paragraphs 3 and 5, of the RPC.
Facts
- Petitioner, as punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental, prescribed communal tank water distribution exclusively to residents of his barangay, despite the tank’s location in Barangay Mampas, Valencia and ownership by Vicente Darong.
- Indalecio Darong continued tapping water; on 7 April 1999 petitioner cut off his access. On 8 April 1999, petitioner inspected the tank, disconnected an illicit tap and fashioned a wooden plug using a borrowed bolo.
- Prosecution’s version: Upon discovery, petitioner charged at Indalecio shouting “Patyon tikaw!” (“I will kill you!”), then threatened Indalecio’s wife, Diosetea, and later Vicente, shouting “Wala koy gipili … patyon tikaw!” and “Bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!” (“Even if you are old, I will crack open your skull!”).
- Defense’s version