15/06/2026
Jurisprudence Update: Non-Verbal Threatening Gestures May Constitute Grave Threats - In G.R. No. 265736 (Gregory Israel v. People of the Philippines), promulgated on November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that non-verbal threatening gestures, when accompanied by criminal intent, may constitute grave threats under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Gregory Israel (Israel) of grave threats after finding no criminal intent in his gestures of pretending to shoot and behead two individuals. However, it clarified that, contrary to Israel’s argument, the crime may be committed through non-verbal gestures and not only through spoken or written words.
Israel claimed to be a Belgian architect authorized to practice his profession in the Philippines. Belgian business partners Christine Helena Amanda Navez (Navez) and Olivier Edmund Denonville entrusted the construction of their building to Israel, only to discover numerous defects, which were later confirmed by a civil engineer.
Israel refused to correct the defects, insisting that the structure had been built in the manner commonly practiced in the Philippines. This prompted the business partners to file a case for damages against him.
Sometime in 2017, while the two business partners were on their way home from the airport, they nearly collided with Israel’s motorcycle. He then allegedly made two overt gestures: pointing his fingers at Navez’s head as if pulling a gun trigger and drawing his fingers across his neck as if threatening to behead her.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court convicted Israel of grave threats, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled that his gestures could only be interpreted as threats.
Seeking relief from the SC, Israel argued that he had no criminal intent when he performed the acts and that Article 282 of the RPC does not cover purely non-verbal gestures.
The SC acquitted Israel after finding that criminal intent had not been proven. However, it disagreed with his other argument and ruled that non-verbal gestures may constitute grave threats.
To secure a conviction for grave threats, the RPC requires two elements: (1) the actual utterance or communication of a threat and (2) the intent to intimidate. The SC held that Article 282 of the RPC does not distinguish between threats conveyed verbally and those expressed through non-verbal gestures. What matters is the communication of a threat intended to intimidate. Although the second paragraph of the provision specifies that threats may be conveyed orally or in writing, it does not exclude threats conveyed through non-verbal means. Thus, threats may be either verbal or non-verbal.
Like Article 494 of the 1870 Spanish Penal Code, from which Article 282 of the RPC originated, the provision “embraces the entire range of human interactions” in which one person threatens another. It merely provides that a threat made in writing or through a middleman carries a heavier penalty.
Send a message to learn more
