Short answer. Yes. Article 282 punishes threatening another with a wrong amounting to a crime against person, honour or property, whether or not the threat is ever carried out. What the circumstances change is the penalty — in particular whether a condition was demanded and whether the offender attained his purpose.
What the law says
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
Revised Penal Code, Article 282 — Grave Threats. Read the full provision →
The threat is the act the law punishes
Article 282 begins: 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 the penalties it then sets out. Nothing in that sentence waits for the threatened act. What the provision addresses is the intimidation itself and the fear it creates, which is a harm the law treats as complete when the threat is made. A person who says the threat was never meant seriously is raising a question about intent, not pointing to a missing element.
Conditional and unconditional threats are graded differently
The article's first paragraph covers a threat made while demanding money or imposing some other condition, and it says the condition need not itself be unlawful. There the penalty is measured against the crime threatened — a fixed number of degrees below it, with a further reduction where the offender did not attain his purpose. The second paragraph covers a threat not made subject to any condition, and gives it a penalty of its own. So whether something was being demanded is often the first question asked of the facts.
Writing and middlemen make it worse
Where a conditional threat is made in writing or through a middleman, the article directs that the penalty be imposed in its maximum period. The reason is not hard to see: a written threat is deliberate, it persists, and it can be produced again; a threat relayed through another person shows organisation. For anyone on the receiving end this has a practical consequence — the message, in its original form, is both the evidence and the aggravating circumstance, so it should be preserved as sent rather than retyped or summarised.
Not every frightening statement is within the article
The wrong threatened has to amount to a crime. Warnings of things that are unpleasant but lawful, and outbursts in the heat of a quarrel that nobody could take as an announcement of a criminal purpose, do not automatically fall here; the Code deals with lighter threats separately. Whether particular words crossed the line is judged on the whole context — what was said, how, and what followed — and it cannot be settled from the wording of one message alone. Keep the record and take it to a lawyer rather than replying.