1.

PLACE OF COMMISSION
a. Palace of the Chief Executive, etc., or in a Place of Religious Worship
People v. Jaurigue
The claim of the prosecution, sustained by the learned trial court, that the offense was committed by the
defendant and appellant, with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated
to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and
appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina is not a criminal
by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. She is a God-fearing young woman, typical
of our country girls, who still possess the consolation of religious hope in a world where so many others
have hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now drifting away they know not where.

b. Uninhabited Place
People v. Damaso
Anent the circumstances of uninhabited place, counsel disclaims its existence by pointing to the proximity
of the sugarcane field where the victims were killed to the national highway as well as to certain houses in
the barrio. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the
scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help. 8 Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in
the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility
for the victims to receive any assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is
clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they could have
disposed of them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were found. Thus, in People v. Saguing,
the Court considered the crime as having been committed in an uninhabited place because the killing was
done in a secluded place at the foot of a hill, forested, and uninhabited.
People v. Coderes

The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit:

(a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

(b) When especially sought for by the offender; or

(c) When offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

Appellants also strongly vociferate against the trial court's considering "uninhabited place" as an
aggravating circumstance in the commission of the alleged crime. They contend that there is more than
sufficient evidence and based on the testimony itself for the prosecution that the Tourist Spot or the place
where the alleged rape was committed is not uninhabited because of the following facts established and
uncontradicted:

(1) There are houses within the 50 meter radius from the Tourist Spot.
 (2) Place where crime was allegedly committed only 4 meters from road and is
continuously illuminated by cars oncoming from Subic and Olongapo City.

(3) There were plenty of cars passing through during time of alleged crime.

(4) Prosecution witness admits he was able to flag down a jeepney to call for a police right
away. This is established by the fact that alleged crime was at 2:30 a.m. and testimony that
at 3:00 a.m. parties were already at the Olongapo Police Station.

Uninhabited Place:

It has been established through the testimony of prosecution witness Dumlao that Tourist
Spot is not an uninhabited place. His house is only 50 meters away from it. The Tourist
Spot was established and so named by the Rotarians for people to stand and view the
scenery of Grande Island (p. 4, tsn, 23 Feb. '70). It is V shaped surrounded by a fence, and
there is a gap or a passage way on one side where people, particularly the witness, go up
and down everyday (pp. 20 and 26, t. s. n. Ibid) Moreover, the Tourist Spot is only four -
meters away from the national highway coming from Olongapo City, and going to Subic,
and where vehicles were continuously passing by, even as the crime was being committed.

The house of Dumlao was inhabited by four people at the time, including himself (p. 27,
tsn, Ibid), and it was sufficiently near the Tourist Spot for him to hear the screams of the
complaining witness which enabled him to go to her rescue. ...

Re: Uninhabited Place (Desploblado):

Uninhabited place is aggravating when the crime is committed in a solitary place, where help to the victim
is difficult and escape of the accused is easy, provided that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage
of to facilitate the commission of the felony.

In the case of People v. Laoto, 52 Phil. 402, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place which the
court a quo appreciated against the accused was rejected by Us for the reason that from the house of the
deceased "the place where the boat was could be seen, and his voice could be heard therein. "

Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was not accepted in the case of People v.
Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610, as there was lack of evidence to show that the appellant sought the solitude of the
place in order to better attain his purpose and that the place where the crime was committed was about 1
kilometer away from the house.

The case of People v. Deguia, 88 Phil. 520 also repudiated the appreciation of uninhabited place against
the accused even when the nearest house to that of the offended party was 1 kilometer away because the
appellants did not select the place where to better attain their objective without interference, or to secure
themselves against detection and punishment.

In the light of the foregoing decisions and in the presence of uncontradicted evidence that the alleged scene
of the offense is not uninhabited, there rises the inevitable conclusion that the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place cannot be considered against the three accused-appellants in the case at bar.
 c. Dwelling

People v. Almoguerra

Dwelling is likewise present in this case as aggravating circumstance because robbery could not be
committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home (People vs. Gapasin, 145
SCRA 181).1[49]

Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants deliberate intrusion in the
privacy of the Julatons domicile shows perversity.

In People vs. Feliciano,2[58] dwelling is considered aggravating in robbery with homicide because this
kind of robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the house.

Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659, the prescribed
penalty for robbery with homicide is composed of two indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.
Considering that in the present case, there is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling that attended the
commission of the crime, we impose upon the appellants the supreme penalty of death.

People v. Daniela
The trial court correctly appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance against the appellants. There
was no provocation on the part of Ronito and Maria Fe. The crime was committed in their dwelling. This
Court held that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere.3[30] However, dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not alleged in the amended
information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the information4[31] and proved otherwise, even if proved but not alleged in the information, the
same shall not be considered by the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused. Although
the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000, however, the same may be applied retroactively.5[32]
People v. Bagsit
On 12 September 1999 at around twenty (20) minutes past eight oclock in the evening, prosecution witness
Richard Sison6[2] and his younger sister Heidi were watching television inside their house at Bgy. Soro-
soro, Ilaya, Batangas City. When Richard looked out of the window, he saw a man whom he identified as
Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father Pepito Sison who was then closing the front door of their house.
The barrel of the gun held by Angelito protruded thru their grilled window. Not for long, Richard heard a
gunshot and almost simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. With the help of his mother
Teodora who came from his grandfather’s house next door, Richard rushed his father to the hospital where
he died shortly after.

Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is likewise aggravating. The triggerman
showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the
latters own house when he could have very well committed the crime without necessarily
transgressing the sanctity of the victims home. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do
him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to
be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense - it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode,
although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside.

2. TIME OF COMMISSION
a. Nighttime
People v. Avendano – killed Remedios and Melvin Castillo. Jeffre Castillo

The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful
entry. Of the three, however, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information. The Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000, requires that every complaint
or information should state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances.7[63] This
rule may be given retroactive effect in the light of the settled doctrine that statutes regulating the
procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.8[64] Hence,
following this new rule, we cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
unlawful entry, since they were not alleged in the information.

People v. Caloza

On July 5, 1997, Dionisio asked Allan to come to his farm the following day to help him till the
land. Allan agreed. At about 5:00 a.m. on July 6, 1997, Allan left their place in Liway, Sta. Rosa,
Nueva Ecija and proceeded to Dionisio’s farm. Allan had a lente placed on his forehead to illumine
his path as it was still dark. When Allan was about a hundred meters away from Dionisio’s hut, he
noticed Rafael at a distance of ten meters coming from the direction of the hut of Dionisio. 9[7]
Rafael was no stranger to Allan because the latter used to help Dionisio till the field.10[8] Allan
readily recognized Rafael from the illumination coming from the lente on his forehead. Allan
noticed bloodstains on the clothes of Rafael. Allan was perplexed when Rafael tried to evade him
as they met.11[9] Allan then entered Dionisio’s hut which at that time was lighted by a kerosene
lamp called kingke. Allan called but nobody answered. He peeped through the window and was
horrified to see his brother’s feet as well as blood under the bed. Allan immediately rushed home
and reported the incident to his parents. Allan and his parents proceeded posthaste to Dionisio’s
hut. They saw several persons near the hut of Dionisio including some policemen who prevented
Allan and his parents from entering the hut. It turned out that Dionisio, his wife Edna and their
young son Mark Joseph Anthony were already dead.

The Court does not agree with the ruling of the trial court that nighttime was attendant in the commission
of the crime. While it was established, as admitted by Rafael himself, that the victims were killed between
the hours of 2:00 to 3:00 a.m. of July 6, 1997, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Rafael took
advantage of the darkness of the night to successfully consummate his dastardly acts. By and of itself,
nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought
by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by
ensuring the offenders immunity from capture.

PEOPLE V. OCO – riding in tandem

We do not agree with the trial court, however, in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission
of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of
impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not
merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.12[96] Although the offense was committed at night,
nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted, and thus
could no longer insure the offenders immunity from identification or capture. 13[97] In this case at
bar, a lamp post illuminated the scene of the crime.

PEOPLE V. MACTAL - parricide

Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where no evidence was presented
showing that nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken advantage of by him to facilitate
the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from captive.

3. PERSONAL CIRCUSMTANCES OF THE OFFENDER

a. Recidivism
PEOPLE V. BALDERA
The evidence shows that at about 4 a.m. on December 23, 1947, a Casa Manila bus loaded with passenger
left Batangas, Batangas, bound for Manila. On the highway in barrio Calansayan, municipality of San Jose,
same province, it was held up by a group of five or six armed men. One of these, later identified as herein
appellant Pedro Baldera, who was then armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed
by a hail of bullets coming from different directions. As a result, several passengers, among them Jose
Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza, were wounded. After the firing had ceased, appellant got
on the bus and, threatening the passengers with his gun, took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana
Villena. Another passenger named Francisco Mendoza was also relieved of his P3. Appellant then alighted
and ordered the bus to proceed, whereupon the driver headed for the municipal building of San Jose and
there reported the incident to the authorities. The wounded were taken to the hospital, where Jose
Cabrera died from his wounds on the following day. Jose Pastor, who was wounded in the left leg, was
cured in two months, while Francisco Mendoza's gunshot wound in the right shoulder healed in 15 days.

The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the accused the circumstance of recidivism by
reason of his previous conviction for theft, it appearing that crime was committed on or about December
30, 1947 (Exhibit E) while the offense now charged took place seven days before that date.

b. Reiteration or Habituality
PEOPLE V. GAORANA - rape
The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the
aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made no express ruling
that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution
manifested that appellant had been convicted by the Regional Trial Court of
Kabangkalan, Negros Occidental in Crim. Case No. 013 on March 29, 1988 and was
serving sentence for the crime of homicide.i[34] However, the prosecution failed or
neglected to present in evidence the record of appellants previous conviction. Quasi-
recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified
copy of the sentence convicting an accused.ii[35] The fact that appellant was an inmate
of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against him.iii[36]

PEOPLE V. BALDOGO
Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code14[59] is alleged in
both Informations. Accused-appellant is alleged to have committed murder and
kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime
of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance.15[60] The
prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of
evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the
prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment
convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had
become final and executory.16[61] The raison detre is that:

In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record
of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide in Criminal Case No.
10357-R by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6) with a penalty of from six
years and one day as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and one day as
maximum and that the sentence of accused-appellant commenced on November 19,
1992 and that the minimum term of the penalty was to expire on August 16, 1997.17[63]
The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the best evidence under
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court18[64] to prove the judgment of the
 Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had become final
and executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is
inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed
or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced
fact that accused-appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that
final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. 19[65] There being no
modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime, accused-appellant should be
meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised
penal Code.20

4. PRICE, PROMISE, OR REWARD

5. MEANS OF COMMISSION
a. Taking Advantage of Public Office
PEOPLE V. SUMAOY
The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
official position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance requires that the accused,
as a public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for the purpose of
committing the crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his
position, then there is no abuse of public position. In the case before us, no evidence was
adduced to show that the killing of Zandro vargas was in any way facilitated by the accused-
appellants public position. It was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore his
uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the crime.

PEOPLE V. GAPASIN

According to prosecution witness Alberto Carrido, he and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang at about 2:00 P.M. of October 6,
1979 after attending the "pamisa" for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito followed them. While they were walking along the
barangay road, Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle. When Calpito fell on the ground, appellant fired more shots at him.
Thereafter, accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito ran
to succor her fallen husband.

Accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill
any relative of Jerry Calpito who would come near him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares'
group chased them.

The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a member
of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission
order (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951]).

b. INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY

People v. Tiongson – tumakas galling kulungan
The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be
appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera
and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority.

People v. Magdueno
The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority does not
seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it must not
only be shown that the crime was not committed in the presence of the public authority but also
that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. (U.S. v. Rodriguez, 19
Phil. 150; People v. Rizal, 103 SCRA 282). In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public authority
involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court, erred in including commission of
the crime with insult to public authority as an aggravating circumstance.

c. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX

People v. Paraiso
However, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex was not appreciated because it can only be
considered in crimes against persons and honor. Robbery with homicide is a crime against property not
against person as the homicide is a mere incident of the robbery. In this case, it cannot be used as an
aggravating circumstance.

People v. Arizobal

PEOPLE V. BAJAR
Anent the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of age, it is considered present when the offended person, by reason of his age,
could be the father of the offender.[39] This is obvious in this case. Not only was Aquilio, by
reason of his age, considered old enough to be the father of Alejandro (who incidentally
declared in open court that he was 58 years old),[40] he was also the latter’s father-in-law. The
presence of this aggravating circumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore,
reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. Further, it is ingrained in Philippine culture that
those advanced in age are respected especially in the provinces.
PEOPLE V. MANDOLADO

There is also merit in appellants' contention that there could be no abuse of confidence as the evidence on record showed the lack of
confidence by the victims to the appellants, that this confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated the commission
of the crimes. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence
between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the
crime." (People vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172). It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and
personal such as would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime; that such confidence was a means
of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said
confidence (People vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534). In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate
relationship upon which confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. Consequently, no
confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.

g. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

PEOPLE V. BALDOGO
hile the Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty of murder, it does not agree with the rulings
of the trial court that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the
confluence of the following requisites:

x x x (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly
indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time
between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. x x x21[44]

The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, like any other qualifying
circumstance, must be proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding of evident
premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has
decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.22[45] The prosecution must
adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and prepared
before it was effected.23[46] The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to
commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law does not
prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony
up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be resolved on the basis of the extant factual
milieu.

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact that
accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a
kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to
kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to
escaping from the colony. There is no evidence establishing when accused-appellant and Bermas
hid the bag under the tree. The prosecution even failed to adduce any evidence of overt acts on
the part of accused-appellant, nor did it present evidence as to when and how he and Bermas
planned and prepared to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie and to prove that the two felons since then
clung to their determination to commit the said crimes. Although accused-appellant and Bermas
were armed with bolos, there is no evidence that they took advantage of their numerical
superiority and weapons to kill Jorge. Hence, abuse of superior strength cannot be deemed to
have attended the killing of Jorge.24[47] Nighttime cannot likewise be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance because there is no evidence that accused-appellant and Bermas
purposely sought nighttime to facilitate the killing or to insure its execution or accomplishment
or to evade their arrest.25[48] Neither is dwelling aggravating because there is no evidence that
Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their house and killed outside the said house.\

PEOPLE V. DELADA
There was no evident premeditation on the part of Delada in killing Paredes. The prosecution
failed to prove the requisites of evident premeditation as follows:
1) the time when the offender decided to commit the crime;
2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination
3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow the offender to
reflect upon the consequence of his act.
The premeditation must be evident to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

PEOPLE V. APOSAGA