THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. EDUARDO RAMIREZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

The defendant was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with having orally
threatened to inflict some bodily harm upon the persons of Martina de Lara,
Marcela Manucum, Lorenzo Santos, Dolores Bacalso, Anaqureta Diaz and Eugenia de
Lara, without however showing by his posterior acts that he persisted in his
threats. The defendant filed a motion to quash, alleging that as the crime was
committed on July 28, 1955 and the information was filed on September 27, 1955,
or after 61 days, it had already prescribed in accordance with Article 90 of the
Revised Penal Code. The Municipal Court dismissed the case, and the appeal taken
by the Assistant City Fiscal to the Court of First Instance of Manila having
been also dismissed, the plaintiff has again appealed.

According to the appellant, the crime charged falls under Article 282,
paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code; is punished with arresto mayor and a
fine not exceeding P500.00; and in accordance with Article 90 of the Revised
Penal Code, prescribes in 5 years. Article 282 refers to an act of threatening
to inflict upon the person, honor or property of another or of his family any
wrong amounting to a crime.

The information recited “that on or about 28th day of July, 1955, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, in the heat of anger, did then and
there wilfully, unlawful and orally threaten to do some bodily harm to the
persons of Martina de Lara, Marcela Manucom, Lorenzo Santos, Dolores Bacalso,
Anaqureta Diaz and Eugenia de Lara, the said accused, without, however, showing
by his posterior acts that he persisted in the idea signified by his
threats.”

Article 285, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code punishes with arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 “any person who in the heat of anger,
shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime, and who
by his subsequent acts shows that he did not persist in the idea involved in his
threat, provided that circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.”

We are of the opinion that the information charges light threats defines and
penalized by Article 285, paragraph 2, and not grave threats contemplated in
Article 282, paragraph 2. The allegations that the threats was oral and made in
the heat of anger and that the accused did not by his posterior acts show that
he persisted in his threat, are descriptive merely of the light offense. It is
true that the information does not allege that the threatened bodily harm is one
not constituting a crime, but neither does it allege that it is one amounting to
a crime.

The appellant is mistaken in the belief that Article 282, paragraph 2,
provides an alternative fine of not less than P200.00 which is a correccional
penalty under Article 26 of the Revised Penal Code, because the fine spoken of
should not exceed P200.00, of from one to two hundred pesos.

Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed with costs de oficio. So
ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,
concur.