You are on page 1of 5


Place of commission
a) Place of chief executive (symbol of state authority, place entitled to respect whether the
president is present or not.
b) Place of religious worship (place that should be respected, entitled to worship, no need to
 Jaurigue – girl did not intend to disrespect the church (she did not choose to commit the offense
in the church)
c) Uninhabited place (par 6) – should be no houses at all, considerable distance from the
nearest town, or when houses are scattered, victim cannot receive help form other people.
Regardless of the house being proximate to the nearest town, SC: no reasonable possibility
for the victim to receive help. (hear shouts of help or render assistance) UNINHABITED
REGARDLESS -if normally the place is not uninhabited then it cannot be aggravating
 People vs Damaso – the sugar plantation. Can’t see where the crime is being committed
d) Dwelling (of the offended party) – sanctuary of the family, feel safe from outside violence,
used for rest and comfort, people feel secure. Why aggravating- violation of the security.
Sense of privacy was violated – disrespect of the offender of the right to security and privacy.
When at home, you put your guard down, do not expect to be attacked at home.
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PERMANENT. Dorm can. Hotel no. prison no. there is no security in
the dwelling (shanties) what the attack shows of the offender.
2. Time of the commission
a) Nighttime – hours between sunset and sunrise. Must take advantage of nighttime.
(Generally people are tired and less alert at night) gives a greater probability of success.
Because the offender intended to use the nighttime to the circumstance
REQUIRES OBJECTIVELY TO THOSE HOURS. Subjectively not aggravating if not during night.
Not aggravating: Crime to commit during the time is not intentional. Dark room can be
treachery and not nighttime.
b) On the occasion of a calamity
 Takes advantage of the confusion and chaos. Offender takes advantage of time. Greater moral
perversity: uses other people’s misfortune to his advantage rather than helping them.
Aggravating bec committed during or after the calamity.
3. Person
a) Recidivism – one who has been previous convicted by final judgement (appealed and denied
or prescription of appeal) of one felony and is under trial for another felony for the same
felony under the same title? Robbery and threat.
 Entire period of judgement. From arraignment to final. Excluded if same time final judgement
 People vs baldera – the prior conviction must be for a felony committed prior to the felony
being under trial.
 What does the circumstance show the offender: commiting crimes of the same nature (follow
sequence in syllabus)
b) Reiteration or habituality – at the time of his trial, the offender has previously completed a
 Reason aggravating compared to recidivism: in recidivism: offender has propensity to commit
crimes of the same nature
 in reiteration: not limited to crimes under the same title. it shows offenders resistance to reform.
Addresses the offenders seeming resistance to reform
 penalty: so that he can be reformed. Longer the penalty – shows time he needs to reform.
4. Motivation
a) Price, promise or reward
Manifests: greed and mercenary nature. Bargain one’s life for personal gain. Shows moral
Does it have to be monetary? There is a pecuniary or tangible value for the motivation
which shows greed or mercenary nature. Will not include any other psychological and
emotional reward. Does not manifest the same moral depravity.
5. Manner (pertaining to the execution of the felony, clearest way of showing his mens rea=
showing his greater perversity)
a) Taking advantage of a public officer
 Use his capacity as a public official. Use public office to commit a felony
 People vs capalac – the person did not use his position. Case of vindication. Not performing his
functions, not using his office as policeman to kill his brother’s policeman. He would have killed
him even w/o being a policeman
 People vs gapasin – armalite was given to him as a service firearm. SC:
 Can we consider public office as personal circumstance? Not personal circumstance of the
offender. Not a fact of his being a public officer. Essence of this aggravating circumstance is the
advantage he has from his office
 Act committed is incidental of a crime then not aggravating
b) Insult to public authority
 Committed in the presence of public authority.
 Teacher is a person in authority. Know that that person is a teacher. Ignorance of the law that a
teacher is a public authority then not excused
c) Disregard of rank, age or sex
-if the facts of the case do not show the intention to show the disregard of the rank, age and
sex then it is not aggravating
- if the offender is a 70 year old man then maybe no. (not objective circumstances: it
depends of the facts. It is taken case to case basis

e) band

 4 armed men, all armed (possess a weapon – stones)

 Acting together means (all of them stabbing the person) not assisting – like keeping people from
assisting the victim
 All are principals bec they all acted directly
 Direct overt act is act of commission of a killing
 More perverse bec increases chances of success, lesser resistance from victim or aid of others
 Aid of arms – all
f) Inundation: means to commit the felony. Use fire as a means to kill.
 Phrase “other” important? (ask linelle)
g) Evident premeditation
 Premeditation: commission of it was decided upon much earlier than he decided to commit a
 Evident (clear) established complete proof that they planned on the execution of the crime.
1) Decision was made consciously
2) Decided at an earlier time
3) There has to be significant lapse of time, the offender still stuck to his decision. Time
depends of
- If killed someone else no evident premeditation. Predetermined was the killing of the
- Presumption is man is inherently good (gives time to think).
- The underlying assumption: that time will allow his plans to subside. Conscience will
dissuade him from commiting the felony. The person who commits this displays the ability
to overcome his conscience and still pushes through the killing. “Cold-bloodnedness”

Us vs manalinde
The fact that he did not desist after a travel of one and half days means that he didn’t desist
Contend: killed at random.
Sc: it did not affect the nature of the crime bec. It may be random but that was what was
already determined and decided upon before. Plan was already to kill randomly and he
stuck to it and carry it out to commission. What he decided to do. Not referring to the
identity of the victim when the plan never even involved the killing of a specific killing.
h) Craft
- Use trickery to commit the felony.
- (pretending to be customers. Tricked the owner to let them in)
- What is the mens rea: that the victim is unsuspecting. Victim will lower defense bec he was
tricked. If compared to breaking of doors/unlawful entry, this one they use disguise or craft.
Achieves the asme end = allows the perpetrators in and allows the victims to be defenceless
and get around any security measures that the victim placed around himself) shows the
greater perversity.
i) Use of superior strength
- The offender has a great disparity in strength of the offenders and the victim.
- What are the possible strengths that an offender can have over the victim? 250 pound MMA
- Advantage must be taken of that superiority
- To ensure success, so victim cant defend himself
j) Treachery
- When the offender employed means used by the offender to render the victim defenceless
and ensure that offender is not prevented from committing the felony through retaliation or
interference from a 3rd party.
- People vs sangalang – Shot victim while picking coconuts from the tree. Why treacherous?
No where to hide. Utterly defenceless. Attacked from behind.
- Treachery can absorb other aggravating circumstances. Aid of armed men. Nocturnity.
Uninhabited place. Superior strength. Dwelling. Many.
- How does the prosecution know which to prove? Enough evidence to show that the
circumstance are independent from each other, otherwise, absorbed.
- Element of crimes against persons. Swift attack and defenceless.
- People vs escote (should not be cited as jurisprudence bec of obiter- If homicide with killing
is treacherous. w/n treachery aggravating circumstance in crime with
- General rule: Treachery is applicable only to crime against persons; robbery with
homicide is generally considered a crime against property.
But its is still possible to use treachery as an aggravating. But it consists of 2 felonies
(robbery and homicide) that are fused together
Sc: if the homicide was attended by treachery, the court cannotdecide against the absence
of the aggravating. Treachery will aggravate the homicide
But disposition: did not include bec of some procedural issue.
- People vs arizobal – no treachery bec crime against property
k) Ignomity
- Adds to the moral or psychological harm to the victim.
l) Unlawful entry
- Normal means of entry is through a door.
- Entry through fire escape and back door. Unlawful entry?
- -any means other than the front door
m) Breaking a wall or door
- Involves forcible entry.
- Why aggravating? Shows the greater audacity of the offender who would try to overcome
the security measures placed. Shows a persistence
n) Aid of persons under 18.
- Using someone who doesn’t understand the nature and consequences of their actions.
Easier to coerce the child bec he might not realize the full consequence. Victims more
- Taking advantage of the exempting circumstances. Putting a layer of immune persons
against them. No proceedings against them. Introducing them into a life of crime

o) Cruelty
Special aggravating..

Possession of the illegal firearm in killing then it becomes a special aggravating circumstance.

Qualifying(changes penalty)/agrravatign circumstance.

Art 15

Alternative (change the circumstance) can be mitigating or aggravating dpending on the circumstance

Gen rule: rape between relatives are aggravating. But father rapes daughter has a special law.

Mojor crimes against persons. Serious physical in

1) relationship
living together, ascendants and descendants.
2) Must be proven habitual drunk (can’t use what it is bec he knows what it is to be drunk)
- Non-habitual drunk can apply as a mitigating circumstance bec impairment of the mens rea.
3) Degree of instruction
-when mitigating
- why mitigating as a gen rule: intelligence is an essential knowledge. If the level of knowledge is
affected then counted as mitigating.
there are certain crimes that are universally known as a felony ?/
- Aggravating circumstance : gen rule for degree of instruction: only if his degree of instcution
is taken advantage of. (lawyer or doctor who uses his specialized skills to commit a felony).
Use to perpetrate a felony.