THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- SB-16-CRM-0127
For: Grave Threats (Article 282 par.
2 of the Revised Penal Code.

JUVENAL AZURIN Y
BLANQUERA,
Accused.
l[ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - l[

Present:

CABOTAJE-TANG, A.M., P.J.

Chairperson
FERNANDEZ, S.J. T., J. and
FERNANDEZ, B. R.,J.

}{ ------ - --------- - - - - -------

Promulgated:

Afu11--
- - - - -
~M)36
------ -

DECISION

FERNANDEZ, B., J.

Before this Court stands charged accused Juvenal

Azurin y Blanquera for grave threats, defined and penalized
under paragraph 2, Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, the accusatory portion of the Information against
him reads as follows - - '

That on November 13, 2013, or sometime

prior or subsequent thereto, in Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan, Philippines, and within the juriSdiCti~

~
 DECISION 2 SB-16-CRM-0127

of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused

JUVENALAZURINYBLANQUERA,a public officer,
being the Regional Director of Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-RegionalOffice No. 2,
Camo Adduru, Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan, committing the offense herein charged in
relation to his office and taking advantage of his
position, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously threaten, without condition, his
subordinate Jaime J. Clave with the infliction of a
wrong amounting to a crime by uttering the
following words during their telephone
conversation: "Putang-ina mo Clave ha, putang-
ina mo Bobot, papatayin kita", over office
internal matters and conflict, which threatened the
said J aime J. Clave and causing the latter to fear
for his life believing that accused, as PDEA
Regional Director, has the capacity and means to
carry out the threat.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Initially, accused Azurin, through counsel, filed a Motion

to Quash Information dated May 23, 2016. After the
prosecution filed its Comment/Objection dated May 24,2016
thereto, the said Motion was denied by this Court (Resolution,
September 15,2016).

Thereafter, the accused was arraigned and when

assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty (Order, September 29,
2016)

On October 21, 2016, the accused filed a Motion to

Dismiss claiming that he and private complainant Clave
already reconciled with the latter executing an Affidavit of
Desistance dated August 26,2016.

However, this Court denied the said Motion to Dismiss

(Resolution, December 21, 2016). A subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration was also denied by the Court (Resolution,
March 13,2017).

During pre-trial (Pre-Trial Order, July 25, 2017), both

parties jointly agreed to stipulate on the followingfacts, to wit
- - (1)The jurisdiction of the Honorable Court over the offense
charged; (2) The jurisdiction of the court over the person of
the accused; (3) The identity of the accused as the same

111
 DECISION 3 SB-16-CRM-Ol27

person charged in the Information in Criminal Case No. SB-

16-0127 for Grave Threats as defined in Article 282
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code; (4) That the accused
Juvenal Blanquera Azurin (Accused), is a public officer and
the Regional Director of PDEA, Regional Office 2, with Office
address at PDEA, Camp Adduru, Barangay Caggay,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan at the time material to this case;
(5) That the private complainant, Jaime C. Clave, (Private
Complainant) is also a public officer and a PDEA Agent
assigned at PDEA Regional Office2, Camp Adduru, Barangay
Caggay, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, at the time material to
this case; (6)That the witnesses Rosenia B. Cabalza, Meynard
Agleham and April Rose Mendoza are also employees of PDEA
Regional Office 2, Camp Adduru, Barangay Caggay,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, at the time material to this case;
(7) That the Code Name PDEA02 RD KIWI refers to the
accused; (8) That on November 15,2013, the accused issued
Office Order No. 2013-0023A, denominated as
RELIEF/DESIGNATION,wherein private complainant as then
Team Leader of SET ISABELA,was rescinded and he was re-
assigned as Member of SET DELTA(Nueva Vizcaya-Quirino)
Intelligence Officers of PDEA Regional Office 02, marked as
Exhibit "D" for the prosecution and Exhibit "2" for the
accused; (9) That in the same Office Order (2013-0023A)
witnesses Rosenia B. Cabalza was relieved as NDIS
Administrator of the Intelligence and Investigation Section of
PDEARegional Office02 and re-assigned as Member of RSOG
11 and Oliver Madriaga was relieved as Member of RSOG 11 and
was re-assigned as Member of SET BRAVO Intelligence
Officers of PDEA Regional Office02 in addition to'his inherent
functions and duties as Special Investigator 11; and, (10) That
the private complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit on
November 19, 2013 or a day after he received Office Order
Number 2013-0023A dated November 15, 2013, which was
received by the private complainant on November 18,2013.

Trial on the merits then ensued.

The first prosecution witness was private complainant

Jaime J. Clave. He testified that on November 13, 2013 at
around 12:10 o'clock in the morning, he received a phone call
from accused Azurin, who was then the Regional Director of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Region 11.
The following conversation took place - -

Azurin Claue, asan ka na?

Clave Andito na sa Tuguegarao, Sir.

A
 DECISION 4 SB-16-CRM-Ol27

Azurin Clave, may sama ka ba ng loob sa

akin?
Clave Wala Sir, Bakit, Sir?
Azurin Putang ina mo, Clave! Putang ina
mo, Bobot! Papatayin kita!
Clave Bakit, sir?
Azurin Napagtagpi-tagpi ko na. Apat na tao na.
Nap agtagpi-tagp i ko na na ikaw
lang ang may sama ng loob sa akin.
Apat na tao na ang nakausap ko.
Azurin Clave, Papatayin kita!

The accused repeated the remark "Claue, papatayin

kita" several times which caused private complainant Clave,
tremendous fear and panic.

Private complainant Clave, thereafter, went to the police

station to report the incident and took photographs of his
cellphone to record the incoming calls he received, who the
caller was and the duration of the call. He also filed an
administrative complaint against the accused before the
Internal Affairs Service of the PDEAand a criminal complaint
with the Office of the Ombudsman.

He recounted that, prior to the incident, they had a good

working relationship and that the accused even attended the
birthday party of his father. Private complainant Clave,
however, suspected that the reason why the accused uttered
the subject remarks, was because he (private complainant
Clave) texted their Deputy Director General for
Administration regarding some office issues pertaining to
operational funds.

Private complainant Clave added that ever since the

incident, his life changed because it was difficult for him to
leave the house, and, if ever he does, he feels uneasy. He also
feared for his life because he knew the accused, being the
Regional Director of PDEA, was capable of doing what he
threatened to do. The accused was also issued a firearm and
a former Navy officer and a member of the Magdalo group.

He then identified several documentary evidence,

namely - - (1) his Complaint Affidavit dated November 19,
2013 (Exhs. "A"to "A-3")with photographs showing details of
the call in his cellphone; (2) a Certification dated November
14, 2013 (Exh. "B") issued by the Tuguegarao City Police
Station and the certified true copy of the police blotter (Exh.

;1itJI
 DECISION 5 SB-16-CRM-0127

"C"); (3) Relief/Designation dated November 15, 2013 (Exh.

"D") with Office Order No. 2013-0023A; (4) Affidavits of
Rosenia Cabalza (Exhs. "E" to "G"); (5) Reply-Affidavitdated
March 9, 2014 (Exhs. "H" to "H-7") with Joint-Affidavit of
witnesses Maynard Agleham and April Rose Mendoza (Exh.
"H-6"); and, (6) Photograph (Exh. "I") of Rosenia Cabalzo's
cellphone showing call details from the accused.

When cross-examined, private complainant Clave

testified that he joined PDEA in 2007 then started working
with the PDEARegional Office11on February 2011 up to the
present, but knew the accused since 2008; that the nature of
his job entails him to work day or night with no fixed schedule
as the Regional Director may call him anytime of the day; that
the accused called him on his cell phone on November 13,
2013 at around 12:10 o'clock in the morning but has neither
received any other call or text message nor met the accused
since then; that he later went to the police station at around
8:00 o'clock in the morning, accompanied by Agent Job
Gironella; that the first time he saw the accused after the
incident was two or three weeks thereafter during the conduct
of the mandatory drug test in the Regional Office, which is
about 120 kilometers from where he is assigned in Isabela as
team leader; that despite seeing the accused from
approximately five meters distance, no untoward incident
occurred; that at the time the accused called him, he was at
home with his daughter; that he recalled being asked by the
accused if he (private complainant Clave) had hard feelings
about him (accused) to which he (private complainant Clave)
replied no; that the reason why the accused asked about it
was because of the operational fund issue which he learned
from his fellow agent; that he (private complainant Clave)was
being suspected by the accused as the one who reported to
the Deputy Director General for Administration regarding the
said issue; that the repeated utterance of the words
"Papatauiri kita" hurled by the accused against him was not
merely out of anger; and, that he did not receive any death
threat after the subject incident nor did anyone probably
linked to the accused or the accused himself, tried to hurt
him.

The second prosecution witness was April Rose

Mendoza of the PDEAIntelligence Officeassigned in Isabela.
She substantially corroborated the testimony of private
complainant Jaime Clave and that she, together with her eo-
PDEA Agent Maynard Agleham, executed a Joint Affidavit

-=i
dated March 3, 2014 (Exh. "H-6").

;4i
 DECISION 6 SB-16-CRM-0127

Witness Mendoza, in her Joint Affidavit, alleged that in

the afternoon of November 15, 2013, private complainant
Clave, their Team Leader, instructed them (Mendoza and
Agleham) to go to his residence. While in the residence of
private complainant Clave, he mentioned the call made by the
accused to him at midnight of November 15, 2013 and stated
that - pinagmumura ako ni RD, pinagbataan na papatayin
aka, hinamon niya ako ng suntukan at huwag daw akong
magpapakita sa opisina at ayaw niyang makita ang
pagmumukha ko. Pinagbintangan niya akong nagtext kay
DDGA.

During cross-examination, witness Mendoza reiterated

her testimony on direct examination. She further testified
that when she reported to the accused on November 16,2013,
the latter told her that - -" Namu ra ko si Bobot (Clave)"and
"Kunq ana yang nangyari sa amin ni Bobot personal na namin
yon". But, there is nothing in her Joint Affidavit that the
accused wanted to hurt private complainant Clave.

The third prosecution witness, Maynard Agleham, also

a PDEA Intelligence Officer assigned in Isabela, corroborated
the testimonies of private complainant Clave and prosecution
witness April Rose Mendoza. He also admits executing a Joint
Affidavitdated March 3,2014 (Exh. "H-6")with Mendoza. His
direct and cross-examination testimonies were substantially
given in the same tenor as prosecution witness Mendoza.

During re-direct examination, witness Agleham testified

that, prior to the subject incident, he and the accused had a
conversation regarding the change of their team leader and
that they have to support whoever will be designated as team
leader in the same way that they supported Agent Clave (the
private complainant). Witness Agleham, however, did not
know why private complainant Clave would be relieved of his
designation but the accused mentioned that he (private
complainant Clave) would be relieved because of an incident
that happened between them. Witness Agleham then recalled
the time when the accused called private complainant Clave,
with the latter saying, "pinagmumura ako ni Sir Kiwi,
binanatan niya ako at hinamon ng suntukan", "Ayaw kitang
Makita sa opisina", and "Papatayin kita".

During re-cross examination, witness Agleham admitted

that he had no personal knowledge of the subject incident
where the accused told private complainant Clave "Papaiauiri

~~
 DECISION 7 SB-16-CRM-0127

kita" and that he was not with either private complainant

Clave or the accused during the subject incident.

The fourth prosecution witness was Rosenia Cabalza.

She principally corroborated the testimony of private
complainant Clave and identified her Affidavits submitted
before the Officeof the Ombudsman (Exhs. "F"; "G").She also
identified screenshots of her cellphone to prove that the
accused called her at around 1:30 o'clock in the morning of
November 13,2013 but she failed to answer the same as she
was already asleep.

On cross-examination, witness Cabalza testified that

she executed two (2) Affidavits respectively dated November
19,2013 (Exh. "F") and March 6, 2014 (Exh. "G"). Prior to
this, she received Office Order No. 213-00234 dated
November 15, 2013 (Exh. "D"),relieving her as Administrator
of the Intelligence and Investigation Division Section of PDEA
Regional Office 11 and designating her as member of the Arson
Team. Witness Cabalza added that she was just informed by
private complainant Clave regarding the call made by the
accused to him (private complainant Clave) and that both
private complainant Clave and the accused are her close
friends.

Upon a re-direct examination, witness Cabalza further

testified that the November 15, 2013 OfficeOrder she received
also pertains to the reliefs of Agents Jaime Clave (the private
complainant) and Oliver Madriaga.

When queried by the Court, witness Cabalza testified

that it is part of an agent's role to be transferred from an office
designation to a field designation. However, she considered
her transfer from being an Administrator of the Intelligence
Service, National Officeto being a member of the Arson Team
as a demotion. Regarding the missed call of the accused to
her in the early morning of November 13, 2013, witness
Cabalza stated that she did not bother asking the accused
why he made the call. Neither did she bother asking the
accused why she was relieved from her position because she
recognized his authority to re-assign her to other positions.
She was however surprised because the relief implies that she
might have done something wrong or was not qualified to the
position. However, she believes that she has done nothing
wrong.

A r'J
 DECISION 8 SB-16-CRM-Ol27

The last prosecution witness was SPO1 Ricky M.

Ramilo. His testimony was stipulated upon by the parties
particularly on the existence, genuineness and due execution
of the Certification dated November 14,2013 (Exh. "B")issued
by the Tuguegarao Police Station and the certified true copy
of the Police Blotter (Exh. "C").

Upon an oral offer of exhibits by the prosecution and

over the objections of the defense, prosecution Exhibits" A"to
"G"; "H" and submarkings; and, "I" were admitted (Order,
January 11,2018)

The only witness for the defense was accused Juvenal

Azurin himself. He substantially testified on the contents of
his Counter-Affidavit (Exh. "1") with Motion to Dismiss filed
before the Officeof the Ombudsman, as follows - - that he is
the Regional Director of the PDEA,Regional OfficeII, the alter-
ego of the Director General in the said Region; that being the
Regional Director, he may call his subordinates anytime
because their duties and responsibilities were to implement
the Anti-Drug Law 24/7; that he issued the OfficeOrder (Exh.
"2") re-assigning private complainant Clave and received by
the latter on November 18, 2013; that private complainant
Clave was in the Regional Office on December 16, 2013 for
the measurement of their office uniform as shown in the
attendance list (Exh. "3") of PDEA Region II personnel; that
he admits calling private complainant Clave on November 13,
2013 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight to tell him that he
(private complainant Clave) will be reassigned to another
team in Nueva Vizcaya; that, during the conversation, he
noticed that private complainant Clave was upset and
disappointed because his voice started to rise; that private
complainant Clave also told the accused that he (private
complainant Clave) will go to the office the following day to
talk about the re-assignment; that the accused saw private
complainant Clave and after shaking hands, the latter told
the accused that he (private complainant Clave) regretted
filing the instant case; that private complainant Clave will
issue a desistance; and, that when the accused returned, the
Regional Director of Tuguegarao gave him the copy of the
Affidavit of Desistance (Exh. "5") executed by private
complainant Clave which prompted him (accused) to file a
Motion to Dismiss (Exh. "4")with this Court.

On cross-examination, the accused admitted calling

private complainant Clave at around past midnight of
November 13, 2013 to inform him of the re-assignment and

~4
 DECISION 9 SB-16-CRM-0127

that the call lasted for ten (10) minutes and two (2) seconds.
He also admits that he usually informs his subordinates of
their re-assignment even during the middle of the night. He
added that the effective date of private complainant Clave's
re-assignment was on November 13,2013 although the Office
Order was only issued on November 15,2013.

The accused further testified that private complainant

Clave was designated the new team member of Nueva Viscaya
and Quirino provinces from being a team leader of Isabela.
He, however, explains that this was not a demotion because,
in their office,whether one is a team leader or a member, they
were all classmates. He further explains that it is his
discretion as to who will compose a team and that he can
create a team in order to cover each province in the region.

He also admits that private complainant Clave did not

commit any violation or infraction of officepolicies prior to his
re-assignment and that this was not actually a promotion.
because it is not an agency but only under office order. He
adds that the designation as team leader is done on a rotation
basis in order to give the other drug enforcement officers a
chance to lead or learn to lead a team. To show no ill-feelings
towards private complainant Clave, the accused attached a
photocopy of the logbook with the name of private
complainant Clave and his uniform measurements, to his
(accused) Counter-Affidavit.

The accused further stated that he was informed by the

PDEA Deputy Director General for Administration about a
complaint on an OPLANissue through text messages. Upset
and disappointed, he talked to people on the source of the text
messages and admitted calling Rosenia Cabalsa in the middle
of the night of November 13, 2013, after he called private
complainant Clave.

Finally, the accused testified that when private

complainant Clave received the OfficeOrder on November 18,
2013, he (private complainant Clave)readily complied and did
not file any complaint regarding his re-assignment. He added
that the Affidavit of Desistance of private complainant Clave
was executed almost three (3) years after the incident,
indicating therein that it was for the best interest of all the
parties and for reconciliation.

On re-direct testimony, the accused clarified that there

were three (3) persons named in the Office Order - Jaime
 DECISION 10 SB-16-CRM-0127

Clave (private complainant), Rosenia Cabalsa and Oliver

Madriaga, whom he called up in the middle of the night of
November 13, 2013. He further testified, on re-cross
examination, that the effectivitydate of OfficeOrder No. 2013-
0023A was on November 18, 2013.

After orally offering the exhibits for the accused and with
the objections of the prosecution, this Court ruled to admit
defense Exhibits" 1" to "5", and their respective submarkings
(Order, July 30, 2018).

The facts of the case could be summarized, as follows -

At around 12:00 o'clock midnight of November 13,2013,

accused Juvenal Azurin, the then Regional Director of PDEA-
Region 11, called his subordinate, Agent Jaime Clave (the
private complainant), who was then sleeping, to inform him
that he (private complainant Clave)would be relieved as team
leader of SET Isabela and will henceforth be designated as
member of SET Delta (Nueva Vizcaya-Quirino) Intelligence
Officers of PDEA.

The accused also called Agents Rosenia Cabalza (NDIS

Administrator, Intelligence and Investigation Section, PDEA
Regional Office 2) and Oliver Madriaga (member of RSOG 11),
on the same date and time, but was unable to talk to them
because they were already sleeping.

The ten (1O)-minute telephone conversation between the

accused and private complainant Clave became heated when
the former suspected the latter of sending text messages to
the Deputy Director General for Administration regarding an
operational fund issue. This led to the accused continually
making threatening remarks to private omplainant Clave, to
wit - - Putang-ina mo Clave ha, putang-ina mo Bobot,
papatayin kita.

Feeling upset and disappointed after learning of his re-

assignment, private complainant Clave started to raise his
voice. He also said that he would go to the Regional Officethe
following day to talk about his re-assignment.

Fearing for his life, private complainant Clave went to

the Tuguegarao Police Station to have the incident blottered.
He thereafter filed an administrative case with the Internal

~~
 DECISION 11 SB-16-CRM-0127

Affairs Officeand a criminal case for grave threats before the

Officeof the Ombudsman.

Thereafter, private complainant Clave officiallyreceived

the Office Order on his re-assignment dated November 15,
2013, on November 18, 2013. The accused and private
complainant Clave briefly met during the measurement of
their office uniform sometime in December 2013. Three (3)
years later, both parties chanced upon each other and
apparently tried to bury the hatchet leading private
complainant Clave to execute an Affidavitof Desistance.

The kind of grave threats charged herein is described

and punished under paragraph 2 of Article 282 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, to wit - -

Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person who

shall threaten another with the infliction upon the
person, honor or property of the latter or of his
family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall
suffer:

x x x

2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not

exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition.

x x x

From the foregoing, the elements of grave threats not

subject to a condition are the following- - (1)that the offender
threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter's
person, honor or property, or upon that of the latter's family,
of any wrong; (2) that such wrong amounts to a crime; and,
(3)that the threat is not subject to a condition. This felony is
consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge
of the person threatened (Paera vs. People, G.R. No. 181626,
May 30,2011, citing People vs. Villanueva, Nos. 3133-3144-
R, 27 February 1950,48 O.G. 1376 (No.4), 1381).

It must be recalled that the threat as quoted in the

Information was "Putanq-ina mo Clave ha, putang-ina mo
Bobot, papatayin kita". Undoubtedly, the three (3) elements
earlier mentioned are clearly present.

;t't1Jt
 DECISION 12 SB-16-CRM-0127

Although it may be said that the alleged threatening

statements were only made during the telephone conversation
between the accused and private complainant Clave, hence,
with no independent corroboration, the immediate reaction of
private complainant Clave after the conversation coupled with
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses showing
antecedent events will show that the threats and the incident
themselves must be given much credence. This is of course
aside from the fact that the accused himself admitted the
telephone conversation

Aside from the testimony of private complainant Clave,

this Court also gave sufficient weight to the statements of
prosecution witness Rosenia Cabalza, the then NDIS
Administrator of the Intelligence and Investigation Section,
PDEARegional Office2, in her Affidavitsboth dated November
19,2013 (Exhs. "E" and "F"), where she had a conversation
with the accused on November 11, 2013 or prior to the
incident in this case, showing the accused' intense anger and
propensity to kill the person behind the text message to the
Deputy Director General for Administration. The pertinent
recital of the accounts by the witness Cabalza reads - -

I was standing in front of his table, he suddenly

said "May nagtext sa taas, siniraari ako. Hayop!
Pag nalaman ko kung sine ang nagtext, papatayin
ko talaga. Di niya ala m na may mga kaklase ako sa
ISAF. lpapatrace ko ang number niya. I asked
"Kanino nagtext sir?" He answered "kay DDGA.
Finoruiard lahat ng text sakin", Then he scrolled his
cellular phone and said "Huwag itong una, foul ito.
lto nalang", then he read the text message loud to
us. "Papatayin ko talaga kung sino ang nagtext na
ito". Then I asked him "Tinawagan mo na yung
number sir?" He replied hindi, hindi ko tatawagan.
Pinatrace ko na. Taga dito lang yung nag text. Then
I said "Wen sir kasi alam niya yung coplan." And
paano yan sir Coplan ang ipapapirma ko sa iyo
baka isipiri mo ako ang nag text. After that I placed
the documents on top of his table for him to sign
and I left. [Emphasis Supplied]

The actual telephone conversation between the accused

and private complainant Clave was confirmed by the accused
himself to prosecution witness Cabalza during their meeting
on December 3,2013.

)i) ~1
 DECISION 13 SB-16-CRM-0127

This can be gleaned from the March 6, 2014 Affidavitof

witness Cabalza (Exh. "G"),to wit - -

I remember him saying "Ang sama sama ng loob ko

sa tutuo lang gusto ko siyang ipapatay." Referring
to 102 Jaime J. Clave. And I replied "Alangang
bumaba ka sa level na papatay ka ng tao sir." And
he replied "00". I answered pero nakausap mo siya
sir? He answered "00, kinausap ko sya sa
telepono:" I told him "Sabi mo daw wag siyang
magpapakita sa iyo at [sic] papatayin mo daw
siya." And he answered "Talagang papatayin ko
siya. Papatayin ko talaga siya." [Emphasis
Supplied]

The accused himself also talked abou t his anger at

private complainant Clave with 102 April Rose Mendoza and
101 Maynard Agleham, whom he summoned to his office on
November 16, 2013. During this meeting, the accused
mentioned to the two (2)witnesses that "Namura ko si Bobot"
and "Kung ana yong nangyari sa amin ni Bobot, personal na
namiri y~n. "

This Court further considered the demeanor displayed

and the actions taken by private complainant Clave after the
alleged threatening remarks. Not only did he immediately
report the incident to the Tuguegarao City Police Station but
also filed a criminal complaint for grave threats with the Office
of the Ombudsman and an administrative complaint before
the PDEA Internal Affairs. Private complainant Clave also
testified that he feared for his life every time he goes out of
the house and did not even see the accused or visited him in
the office immediately after that incident.

These clearly demonstrates the normal reaction of a

terrified person fearing for his life. It appears that the alleged
threatening remarks even produced mental disturbance on
private complainant Clave, knowing the capacity of the
accused, being his superior, to execute the threat to kill and
that the accused had firearms and connections, being a
former navy officer and member of the Magdalo group.

We further found it unusual for the accused to be calling

private complainant Clave in the middle of the night to merely

111
 DECISION 14 SB-16-CRM-0127

inform him of his relief/re-assignment from his current post.

This information neither pertains to a serious matter nor
requires urgent action. Of note is that the alleged call was
made on November 13, 2013 while the Office Order for the
relief of Clave was only prepared on November 15, 2013, to
take effect on November 18,2013.

The foregoing circumstances led Us to the conclusion

that the real reason for the late night telephone call was for
the accused to confront private complainant Clave on the
accused' suspicion that he (private complainant Clave) was
the one who texted the Deputy Director General for
Administration regarding some issues on the operational
funds of their office.

We also scrutinized the evidence of the accused.

However, much of it were either denials or substantially self-
serving and uncorroborated.

Finally, this Court took note of the Affidavit of

Desistance (Exh. "5") executed by private complainant Clave.
Aside from the fact that the same Affidavit was executed
almost three (3) years after the incident, the circumstances
surrounding its execution remain unsubstantiated. Sufficient
weight cannot thus be given to the same.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Juvenal B.

Azurin GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of grave
threats, as defined and penalized in Article 282, paragraph 2
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and in default of any
modifying circumstance in attendance, hereby sentences him
to suffer a straight penalty of imprisonment of Two (2)Months
and a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00),
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to
pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

BERNE"I~O R. FERNANDEZ
AJsdciate Justice

/"?;{
 DECISION 15 SB-16-CRM-0127

We concur:

~O~TAJE-
. - Pr~gustice
Chairperson
.>

ATTESTATION:

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,

it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

~O~EfrAN
Presiding Justice

BRF/berlin AfJ
*Sitting as Special Member as per Administrative Order No. 262-2018 dated April 30, 2018