People v.

Layug
G.R. No. 223679, September 27, 2017

RULING:

As thoroughly discussed in People v. Escote, Jr., treachery is not a qualifying circumstance but "a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and
a single and indivisible crime".

Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty for
a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken into account. However, aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. In the case at
bar, "treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide". Neither is it "inherent in the crime of robbery with
homicide". As such, treachery may be properly considered in increasing the penalty for crime.

Nevertheless, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of treachery is appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide
only as to the killing but not as to the robbery. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an
unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the victim of any chance to defend himself or repel the
aggression, thus, insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the
victim.

People v. Jose
G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971

RULING

The appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is hardly any necessity to
consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be
imposed. To put matters in their proper perspective and for the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be
imposed in each of the other three crimes of simple rape, it behooves us to make a definite finding in this connection
to the effect that the commission of said crimes was attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a)
nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b)
abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another;
(c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about
ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating; and (d) use of a motor vehicle. With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and Cañal, none of these
aggravating circumstances has been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should, however, be
credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor which does not in the least affect the
nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances
remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three
simple crimes of rape as provided in Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.
 People v. Butler
G.R. No. L-50276, January 27, 1983

RULING:

The Court find and sustain the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or outraged at
the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead. The fact that the
muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Angeles
Roxas, the medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report, clearly established the coitus
after death. This act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is, undoubtedly, an
outrage at her corpse.

It is true as maintained by the defense that the aggravating circumstance of outraging at the corpse of the
victim is not alleged in the information and that the lower court found it had been proved but its contention that the
said aggravating circumstance should not have been appreciated against the accused is without merit. And this is so
because the rule is that a generic aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information may be proven during the
trial over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in imposing the, penalty. Aggravating circumstances
not alleged in the information but proven during the trial serve only to aid the court in fixing the limits of the penalty
but do not change the character of the offense.

People v. Mejorada
G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993

RULING

The SC ruled that the trial court should have, however, appreciated against the accused the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and ignominy 35which, though not alleged in the information, were duly proven without
objection on the part of the accused. At twenty minutes to midnight, the latter unleashed the fury of his criminal mind
on a sleeping victim. He defiled the sanctity of Mrs. Regino's home by forcibly opening its door. Wanting to force
upon her his evil desires, he hugged her and then pressed a knife to her face without any provocation on her part. He
thereupon had sexual intercourse with her in a "dog-style" position. While such a position has been resorted to by
consenting adults, it adds ignominy when employed in rape cases. chanrob virtual law library

Such aggravating circumstances would have justified the imposition of the greater penalty of death pursuant
to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering, however, that the Constitution prohibits its imposition, the
appropriate imposable penalty would be reclusion perpetua, which the trial court correctly imposed, although it sought
to define the same as "imprisonment for life." The penalty of reclusion perpetua is not, of course, similar to or
synonymous with "life imprisonment." As this Court has repeatedly ruled in many cases, reclusion perpetua and life
imprisonment are not synonymous but distinct in nature, duration and accessory penalties.
 People v. Bundoy
G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993

RULING

The Court is legally and morally convinced that appellant committed the crime of rape qualified by the use
of a deadly weapon, as defined and penalized in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Court finds
inaccurate the ruling below that the crime committed is "rape with physical injuries and use of deadly weapon." The
physical injuries sustained by Patria are part and parcel of the commission of the crime of rape, there being no separate
treatment in the case of physical harm done to Patria. Moreover, although mentioned in the complaint filed by Patria,
the crime of physical injuries, whether serious, less serious or slight, was not specifically alleged in the information.
This is a deviation from the provision of Sec. 7, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as the complaint or information did
not even refer to the provision of law punishing the offense of physical injuries. As such, the ambiguity of the
information in this regard should be resolved in favor of the accused.

The lower court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua inasmuch as the crime was attended by the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry. 38 The qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall
should be deemed absorbed in unlawful entry. There being two aggravating and no mitigating circumstances, the
penalty of death would have been the proper penalty were it not for the fact that such penalty is constitutionally
banned.

People v. Salahuddin
G.R. No. 206291, January 18, 2016

RULING

The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape,
but not when the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult. In People v. Herbias, the Court
held:

The use of motor vehicle may likewise be considered as an aggravating circumstance that attended the
commission of the crime. The records show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the jeepney
driven by Saladio after which appellant’s back rider mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There
is no doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate their escape after they
accomplished their mission.

The prosecution has proven through the testimonies of Java and Delos Reyes that appellant was riding a
motorcycle behind the unknown driver when he twice shot Atty. Segundo who thus lost control of his owner-type jeep
and crashed into the interlink wire fence beside the road. The motorcycle then stopped near the jeep, and appellant
shot Atty. Segundo again thrice, before leaving the crime scene aboard the motorcycle. Clearly, the trial court correctly
appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of the crime.

Since the fatal shooting of the victim was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the Court
upholds the trial court in convicting appellant of the crime of murder. The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same Code provides that, in all cases in which
the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when the
commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating circumstance. Although evident premeditation was not
established, the other aggravating circumstances of use of unlicensed firearm and use of motor vehicle in the
commission thereof, were alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. The presence of such aggravating
circumstances warrants the imposition of the death penalty.

People v. Sultan
G.R. No. 132470, April 27, 2000

RULING

The Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to
be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances
under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the
mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the
legislature. Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be
considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought
within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. Under this view, the additional rape committed by accused-
appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied," the lower penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant.