Aggravating Circumstances

damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use

of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.

Article 14, RPC 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

Aggravating Circumstances. – The following are 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means
aggravating circumstances: be employed to weaken the defense.

1. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to
the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of his rank,
age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a
wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As
amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a

conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men

or persons who insure or afford impunity.

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

10. That the offender has been previously punished by an

offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,

reward, or promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation,

fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international
Article 62(1-4), RPC PEOPLE V. GARCIA (2003)

Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating Facts:

circumstances and of habitual delinquency. – Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from
the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability
of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them
at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.
Section 8, Rule 110, Rules on Criminal Procedure
Designation of the offense. – The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing
it.
The case is an appeal from the March 10, 1999 decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, finding
Artemio Garcia y Cruz, Jr. and Regalado Bernabe y Orbe
guilty of Carnapping with Homicide and sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On or about December 21, 1996, the accused forcibly took
from Wilfredo Elis a Tamaraw FX owned by Fernando
Ignacio. The accused stabbed Elis, causing mortal wounds,
which directly resulted in his death. Bernabe and Garcia
rented the Tamaraw FX from Joselito Cortez, who had
leased the vehicle from Ignacio.
On December 18, 1996, Cortez and his driver, Elis, picked
up Ignacio’s FX at his residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Elis then drove the vehicle back to Marilao, Bulacan and at
8:00 a.m., he and the two accused left for Bicol.
Pertinent Issue:
Whether or not the use of motorcycle can be considered an
aggravating circumstance for the appellants
Held:
No, it cannot be considered a [generic] aggravating
circumstance, since the use of said motorcycle was not
alleged in the information. This illustrates Section 8, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Notes:
 The same holds true in the subsequent case
assigned in the syllabus, People v. Buayaban. The
difference lies in the context: in the Buayaban
case, the aggravating circumstance of band in the
crime of robbery could not be appreciated because
it was not alleged in the information.

Section 9, Rule 110, Rules on Criminal Procedure  The same shall not hold true in the case of a
[qualifying] aggravating circumstance, as illustrated
Cause of the accusation. – The acts or omissions in People v. Ignas. (Refer to the succeeding
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying digest)
and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language
used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person
of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating
circumstance and for the court to pronounce judgment.
PEOPLE V. IGNAS (2003)
Facts:
Rodelio Aquino was guilty of qualified rape for raping his 5-
year old niece. He filed a motion for reconsideration on the
grounds of the lack of qualified circumstance due to the
absence of the phrase/words “qualified by/qualifying” etc.
Issue:
Whether or not Rodelio Aquino was correctly charged for
qualified rape
Held:
Yes, he was correctly charged for qualified rape.
The Court held that qualifying circumstances does nt need
descriptive words such as “qualifying/qualified by” to
properly qualify as an offense. Twin circumstances of
minority and relationship have been alleged in the
Information even without the use of descriptive words.
The use of specific words is not important, but the specific
allegation of an attendant circumstance that adds the
essential element raising the crime to a higher category.
The attendant circumstance should be specified, and the
Information specifically stated that the child-victim was a
five-year old minor while specifically alleging that the
accused is the child-victim’s uncle. Once proven beyond
reasonable doubt, qualifies the rape to a heinous crime.
PEOPLE V. GUILLERMO (2010)
Facts:
Joel Guillermo was charged with four counts of rape and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The RTC asked him to
pay exemplary damages. The CA, upon review, removed
the exemplary damages since there were no aggravating
circumstances present during the crimes, hence the review
before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not there were aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime
Held:
No, there were no aggravating circumstances present.
The Court made note that the minority of both victims was
not proven and their relationship with Joel was outside the
scope of Art. 14, RPC (Aggravating Circumstances) and
Art. 266-B.
However, the Court held that the victims are still entitled to
exemplary damages since Joel used a deadly weapon to
perpetrate the offense.
While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic
aggravating circumstances, the instant circumstance in the
commission of rape increases the penalty.
While the Information did not state that Joel had a
weapon, the prosecution sufficiently established that he
threatened his victims with a knife in order to facilitate the
commission of his acts and cow his victims into silence.
Inasmuch as appellant may not be sentenced to death, the
presence of such circumstance justifies the award of
exemplary damages.
 Specific Circumstances
Advantage Taken of Public Office
“That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position”(Par. 1, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender as shown
by the personal circumstance of the offender and also by
the means used to secure the commission of the crime.
Note: It is inherent in case of accessories under Article 19,
par. 3, and the crimes committed by public officers.
Article 19 (3), RPC
Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without
having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any
of the following manners:
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the
crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
Article 62 (1a), RPC
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
PEOPLE V. CAPALAC (1982)
Facts:
Mario Capalac, a police officer, was sentenced to the death
penalty for killing Jimmy Magaso, who killed his brother
Moises.
Issue:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of advantage
taken of public office was present
Held:
No, it was not present.
The Court held that the fact that Mario was a police officer
did not in itself constitute taking advantage of his position;
he merely acted like a brother who cared.
The Court further pointed out that the trial court erred in not
considering the mitigating circumstance defined in Article
13 (5) of immediate vindication, given that the occurrence
was an immediate vindication by Mario for his brother's
death at the hands of Jimmy.
Instead of the death penalty, The Court sentenced the
accused to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as
minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal as maximum.
Notes:
 The ruling in the case is contrasted by the factual
context of the succeeding case, People v. Gapasin,
which involved a member of the Philippine
Constabulary committing the crime of murder using
an armalite that was issued to him. In this case, the
Court affirmed the ruling of the RTC, and
sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua, and
upheld the finding of the aggravating circumstance
of advantage taken of public office.
 In Contempt of or With Insult to Public Authorities
“That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to
the public authorities” (Par. 2, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by his lack of respect for the public authorities.
Notes:
A public authority is a public officer who is directly vested
with jurisdiction and has the power to govern and execute
laws.
This is NOT applicable when the crime is committed in the
presence of an agent only.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.
That knowledge is important because lack of it indicates the
lack of intention to insult the public authority.
With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to Offended Party by
Reason of Rank, Age or Sex
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender as shown
by the personal circumstances of the offended party and
the place of the commission of the crime.
(a) RANK
There must be a difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party.
(b) AGE
It applies to cases where the victim is of tender age as well
as of old age
(c) SEX
This refers to the female sex only, not the male sex, and is
absorbed in treachery.
Dwelling
Bases:
(a) The abuse of confidence which the offended party
reposed in the offender by opening the door to him; or
(b) The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein with violence or against the will of the owner.
Notes:
Dwelling includes dependencies, the floor of the staircase
and enclosure under the house.
If the building where the offense was committed was NOT
entirely for dwelling purposes, dwelling cannot be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
It requires that the crime be wholly or partly be committed in
the dwelling or in any integral part thereof.
PEOPLE V. BAJAR (2003)
Facts:
Alejandro Bajar was found guilty to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder committed against
his father-in-law, Aquilio Tiwanak, after stabbing him with a
bolo three times, in a drunken state, after an argument
ensued, which was instigated by Alejandro asking Aquilio
where his wife was.
Issue:
Whether or not, among other aggravating circumstances,
that of dwelling was present
Held:
Yes, it was, since the crime was committed in the house of
his father-in-law, Alejandro having entered through the
kitchen door.
The Court stressed that dwelling aggravates a felony where
the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, who has not given any provocation. It is considered
aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the
law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's
house to hurt him or do him wrong is guiltier than he who
offends him elsewhere. Aquilio did not provoke Alejandro; it
was Alejandro who rudely and drunkenly interrupted the
quiet and restful evening Aquilio was enjoying. He even
attempted to enter the house without being invited and
without the door being opened for him.
Owing to the aggravating circumstances present in the
case, and without any offsetting mitigating circumstance,
Alejandro was sentenced to the death penalty, justified
pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
Notes: Notes:

 The case of People v. Inggo restates the
importance of including the [generic] aggravating
circumstance in the Informations for it to be
appreciated in trial. Since the aggravating
circumstance of disregard for the victim's sex was
not alleged in the Informations, it was not
considered, pursuant to Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
 The case of Pepito v. CA (Refer to the succeeding
digest) illustrates the negation of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, in the presence of
provocation.
PEPITO V. CA (1999)
Facts:
Noe Sapa, the victim, was feloniously attacked, assaulted,
and stabbed causing him to have multiple stab, incised and
hacking wounds which directly caused his death.
Per prosecution:
Noe Sapa was merely sleeping in their house when the
accused petitioners attacked him in his sleep.
Per defense:
Noe Sapa went out drinking earlier that day wherein he
then threatened the safety of the Pepito Family. He turned
back without making good on his threats, headed back to
his own house, wherein he was attacked and given the
wounds. He would make his way home despite the injuries,
and died on the kitchen floor from the wounds. Court gave
credence to the defence’s explanation of the events as Noe
was indeed found in the kitchen vs in the living room where
he was supposedly taking a nap according to the
prosecution.
The case of People v. Paraiso illustrates the inverse of the
context in this case, there being no sufficient provocation in
the crime.
PEOPLE V. PARAISO (1999)
Facts:
The Court, in this case, is reviewing a RTC decision that
found accused Roland Paraiso guilty of special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of death. The trial court, among other
considerations, held the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of Dwelling.
Issue:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is
present
Held:
Yes, it was present. Here, robbery was committed in the
house of the victim without provocation on the victim's part.
The Court stressed that dwelling aggravates a felony where
the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim
was killed inside his house. In robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating
because in this class of robbery, the crime may be
committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity
of the offended party’s house.
Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He
who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is
guiltier than he who offends him elsewhere.

Issue:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is

present

Held:

No, it was not present.

The Court held that since Noe Sapa gave sufficient

provocation (mitigating circumstance; constitutive of an
incomplete justifying circumstance of defense of relative),
being the threat to the life of the Pepito family.

The Court therefore charged the accused with the minimum

penalty as prescribed by the lower court (10y, 6m, 1d of
prision mayor).
PEOPLE V. RODIL (1981)
Facts:
Deceased Lt. Guillermo Masanaof the Philippine
Constabulary accompanied by PC soldier Fidel went out of
a restaurant they were eating in and approached accused-
appellant to ask if his gun, tucked in his waist, had a
license; Lt. Masana was not in uniform. Fidel grabbed the
gun of accused-appellant when the latter tried to grab it;
accused-appellant was asked to go inside with them in the
restaurant.
Lt. Masana wrote on a piece of paper the receipt for the gun
and signed it; He asked appellant to countersign but
refused to do so and instead asked Lt. Masana to return the
gun to him. The lieutenant then rejected the accused-
appellant’s request and remarked that they will talk the
about it in the municipal building of Indang, Cavite. When
Lt. Masana was about to stand up, the appellant suddenly
pulled out a double-bladed dagger, and with it, stabbed Lt.
Masana several times on the chest and stomach causing
his death thereafter.
Issue:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of lack of
regard due to offended party by rank is present
Held:
Yes, it is present.
The Court noted that the aggravating circumstance of
disregard of rank should be appreciated also since it is
obvious that victim PC Lt. Masana identified himself as a
PC officer to the accused. Moreover, the accused is merely
a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit, which is inferior both
in rank and social status to the victim, highlighting the
difference that prompts the presence of the aggravating
circumstance.
PEOPLE V. DANIEL (1978)
Briefly, in this case, although offended party was merely
renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room
constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the
term is used in Art. 14(3) of the RPC. Be he a lessee, a
boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home, the sanctity
of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
PEOPLE V. BANEZ (1999)
Briefly, in this case, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling cannot be considered aggravating where the
accused and the victim were living in the same house
where the crime was committed. The rationale for
considering dwelling an AC is the violation by the offender
of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing
therein to commit the crime. This reason is entirely absent
in this case.
Abuse of Confidence and Ungratefulness
“That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
obvious ungratefulness” (Par. 4, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender as shown
by the means and ways employed.
Notes:
The confidence between the offender and the offended
party must be immediate and personal.
Abuse of confidence is not considered for the purpose of
increasing the penalty because they are INHERENT in the
following crimes:
(a) Malversation;
(b) Qualified theft;
(c) Estafa by conversion or misappropriation, and
(d) Qualified seduction.
The ungratefulness must be such clear and manifest
ingratitude on the part of the accused.
It is NOT a mere betrayal of trust, since the offended party
must be the one who actually reposed his confidence in the
offender.
PEOPLE V. MANDOLADO (1983)
Briefly, in this case, the Court illustrates that 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 that the accused made use of
such a relationship to commit the crime. It is also essential
that the confidence between the parties must be immediate
and personal such as would give the accused some
advantage to commit the crime.
 Crime in Palace or in the Presence of Chief Executive

“That the crime be committed: It is NOT necessary that a religious function is ongoing to
appreciate the circumstance.
(a) In the palace of the Chief Executive;
Cemeteries are NOT considered as places dedicated to the
(b) In his presence; worship of God.

(c) Where public authorities are engaged in Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or with Band

the discharge of their duties; or
(d) In a place dedicated to religious worship.” (Par. 5, Article
14)
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender as shown
by the place of the commission of the crime.
(a) That the crime be committed in the palace of the chief
executive
Note: It is NOT necessary that the Chief Executive is in the
Malacañan Palace.
Nighttime (obscuridad) is that period of darkness beginning
at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are from
sunset to sunrise. (Art. 13, NCC).
Notes:
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished
in the nighttime.
When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating.
Nighttime is NOT especially sought for when:

(b) In his (Chief Executive) presence
Note: Actual performance of duties is NOT necessary when
crime is committed in the palace or in the presence of Chief
Executive.
(c) Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties
Paragraph 5:
Where Public Authorities are Engaged in the Discharge of
Duties
Paragraph 2:
Contempt or Insult or Public Authorities. In both, public
authorities are in the performance of their duties.
The public authority may or may not be the offended party.
The offended party should not be the public authority.
(d) In a place dedicated to religious worship
Notes:
The crime occurred in a place dedicated to religious
worship, regardless of religion.
(a) The notion to commit the crime was conceived of shortly
before the commission of the crime; or
(b) Crime was committed at night upon a casual encounter
The information must allege that nighttime was sought for,
taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the crime.
As a RULE, nighttime is absorbed in treachery, EXCEPT
when both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity
were deliberately decided upon in the same case, in which
case they can be considered separately if such
circumstances have different factual bases.
Uninhabited place (despoblado) contemplates a place
where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other.
Notes:
Whether or not the crime committed is attended by this
aggravating circumstance should be determined, not by the
distance of the nearest house from the scene of the crime,
but whether or not in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was reasonable possibility of the victim
receiving some help.

Offender must have decided to commit the crime when he

entered the place of worship.

The place must be exclusively dedicated to public religious

worship. Hence, private chapels are not included.

There must be intention to desecrate the place dedicated to

public religious worship.
A band (encuadrilla) subsists “whenever more than three
(3) armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of the offense.”
Notes:
There must be four (4) or more armed men.
(a) The armed persons contemplated must all be principals
by direct participation who acted together in the execution
of the crime. In this case, conspiracy is presumed.
(b) If one of the four armed persons is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band because one had no
direct participation.
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or
persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason.
This aggravating circumstance is NOT applicable in crimes
against chastity.
In the crime of brigandage, which is committed by more
than three armed persons forming a band of robbers, the
circumstance that the crime was committed by a band
should NOT be considered as aggravating, because it is
inherent in or is necessarily included in defining the crime.
This is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength and use of firearms EXCEPT when the firearm has
no license or there is lack of license to carry the firearm.
When the armed men met up casually with others, and a
crime was thereafter committed, it cannot be considered as
an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE V. JOSE (1971)
The forcible abduction with rape was committed by Jaime
Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr, Rogelio Cañal, and Eduardo
Aquino against Magdalena “Maggie” de la Riva. Notably,
De la Riva was abducted around 4:30AM and got back
home at aroun 6:30AM.
The Court held, among other things, that the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime was present because appellants
facilitated the commission of these crimes specifically and
purportedly during the time (4:30AM).
PEOPLE V. DESALISA (1994)
Emmanuel Desalisa and his pregnant wife, Norma
Desalisa, quarreled one afternoon, where Norma told
Emmanuel to leave the house. Prior to this, Emmanuel has
been manhandling his wife because of his jealousy
regarding Norma and another man, who he suspected was
the father of the fetus that Norma was carrying. The
following day, Vicente, Norma’s father, found his daughter
hanging from a tree branch. Although all the evidence was
circumstantial, when taken together, they were enough to
find Emmanuel guilty of the crime. The Court found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion. This was accompanied by the
aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place.
The Court remarked in this case that 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 the commission, there was reasonable possibility
of the victim receiving some help.
Art. 296, RPC
Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members
thereof. — When more than three armed malefactors take
part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band.
Art. 62 (1-3), RPC
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from
the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability
of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
 On Occasion of a Calamity Aid of Armed Men or Means to Ensure Impunity

“That the crime be committed on the occasion of “That the crime be committed with the aid of (a) armed men
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other or (b) persons who insure or afford impunity” (Par. 8, Article
calamity or misfortune” (Par. 7, Article 14) 14)

Basis: Greater perversity is shown by the time of the Basis: Grater perversity is shown in the means and ways of
commission of the felony. committing the crime.

Rationale: The reason for the existence of this Notes:

circumstance is found in the debased form of criminality,
met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of The armed men must NEITHER be conspirators nor
lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their great suffering by principals. They can only be, at most, accomplices.
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
The casual presence of the armed men near the place
Notes: where the crime was committed does not constitute an
aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused
The phrase “or other calamity or misfortune” refers to other did not avail of their aid or rely upon them to commit the
condition of distress similar to those previously enumerated. crime.
Hence, chaotic conditions after liberation are NOT included
under this paragraph (People vs. Corpus; 43 O.G. 2249). Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is sufficient to
constitute this aggravating circumstance.
This will NOT apply if the offender was provoked by the
offended party during the calamity or misfortune. Aid of armed men is absorbed by the employment of a
band.
Article 310, RPC
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed
Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the in the employment of a band. If there are three armed men
penalties next higher by two degrees than those or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating
respectively specified in the next preceding article, if circumstance.
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail
matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As
amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980)
 Recidivism
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender shown by
his inclination to crimes.
Notes:
The phrase “at the time of trial” is employed in its generic
sense. It is meant to include everything that is done in the
course of trial, from arraignment until after sentence is
announced by the judge in an open court.
It is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed
after the commission of the preceding offense provided that
at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused
had already been convicted of the first offense.
Recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating
circumstance no matter how many years have intervened
between the first and the second felonies. (People vs.
Colocar; November 10, 1934).
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects.
Pardon does NOT obliterate the fact that the accused is a
recidivist. Pardon does not prevent a former conviction from
being considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Recidivism is NOT subject to prescription.
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism
affects only the periods of a penalty, EXCEPT in prostitution
(Article 202) and gambling (P.D. 1602) wherein recidivism
increases the penalties by degrees. No other generic
aggravating circumstance produces such effect.
If both offenses are committed on the same date, they shall
be considered as only ONE; hence, they cannot be
separately counted in order to constitute recidivism.
Judgment of conviction handed down on the same day shall
be considered as only one conviction.
To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in
the information and to attach thereto a certified copy of the
sentence rendered against the accused.
A recidivist is entitled to the benefits of ISLAW, but is
disqualified from availing credit of his preventive
imprisonment.
Reiteracion or Habituality
“That the offender has been previously punished (a) for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or (b) for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty” (Par. 10, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity of the offender shown by
his inclination to crimes.
Notes:
If, as a result of taking this circumstance into account, the
penalty for the crime of murder would be death and the
offense for which the offender has been previously
convicted are against property and not directly against
persons, the court should exercise its discretion in favor of
the accused by not taking this aggravating circumstance
into account.
Quasi-recidivism CANNOT at the same time constitute
reiteracion since the former exists before accused begins to
serve sentence or while serving the same, while the latter
exists after the accused has duly served sentence. HENCE,
this aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a quasi-
recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and
reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Article 62 (5), RPC
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall
be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to
the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced
to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
in its minimum period.
Article 160, RPC
Commission of another crime during service of penalty
imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides the
provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not
a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy
years if he shall have already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the
said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
PEOPLE V. MOLINA (2000)
Briefly, the Court established in this case that to prove
recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the
information and to attach thereto certified copies of the
sentences rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the
trial court may still give such AC credence if the accused
does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact
of recidivism. In this case, the accused never voiced out
any objection when confronted with the fact of his previous
conviction for attempted homicide.
PEOPLE V. BALDOGO (2003)
Facts:
The case is an automatic review of the judgment of the trial
court convicting Baldogo of murder and kidnapping,
punishable by death and reclusion perpetua respectively,
after the killing of Jorge Camacho, a 14 year old student,
and depriving the liberty of the latter’s sister, Julie
Camacho, who is 12 years old, for six days.
Issue:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of quasi-
recidivism was present in this case
Held:
No, it was not present.
The Court held that while the accused-appellant is alleged
to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving
sentence in the penal colony for the crime of homicide, the
prosecution failed to adduce as evidence a certified copy of
the judgment convicting accused-appellant which must
have become final and executory.
Instead, an excerpt of the prison record of accused-
appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide was
presented as evidence. Said excerpt is merely secondary or
substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible without 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.
 Price, Reward or Promise
“That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
reward, or promise” (Par. 11, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the
motivating power itself.
Whose liability is aggravated?
If alleged as a general aggravating circumstance, only the
liability of the receiver is affected.
If alleged as a qualifying aggravating circumstance, the
liabilities of BOTH the giver and the receiver are affected.
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to and
in consideration of the commission of the crime.
Notes:
The evidence must show that one of the accused used
money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of
inducing another to perform the deed (US vs. Gamao;
August 30, 1912).
If without previous promise, price or reward was given after
the crime had been committed as an expression of
appreciation for the sympathy or aid shown by the other
accused, it should NOT be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty(U.S. vs. Flores;
September 17, 1914).
The price, reward, or promise need not consist of material
things or need not be actually delivered, it being sufficient
that the offer made be accepted before the commission of
the offense.
Inundation, Fire, Poison
“That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional
damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use
of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin” (Par. 12,
Article 14).
Basis: Greater perversity is shown in the means and ways
employed by the offender.
Notes:
Any of the circumstances in paragraph 12 will only be
considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature
of the offense when they are used by the offender as a
means to accomplish criminal purpose.
When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies
the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only.
When there is no actual design to kill a person in burning a
house, it is plain arson even if a person is killed. On the
other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill the victim,
burned the house where the latter was, and the victim died
as a consequence, the crime is murder, qualified by their
circumstance that the crime was committed “by means of
"fire”.
Further, if fire was used to conceal the killing, there are
separate crimes of arson and murder/homicide.
“Inundation” refers to use of water or causing the water to
flood in the commission of the offense.
“Explosion” exists if there is intent to kill and explosion is
used by the offender to accomplish the criminal purpose, it
is murder if the victim dies as a direct consequence thereof.
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means
of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance.
Since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack,
reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should
qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be
relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance
(People v. Comadre; June 8, 2004).
 Evident Premeditation
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the way of
committing the crime.
Essence of Evident Premeditation:
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.
Notes:
The date, and if possible, the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime is essential, because the
lapse of time is computed from the date and time.
There must be evidence showing that the accused
meditated and reflected on his intention between the time
when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was
actually perpetrated (People vs. Carillo; February 28, 1950).
Mere threat not of a direct and specific character shows
accused was undetermined
Premeditation must be based upon external acts and not
presumed from mere lapse of time.
Effect of Conspiracy:
When conspiracy is directly established, evident
premeditation is presumed to exist. However, when
conspiracy is implied, evident premeditation cannot be
presumed.
Evident premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise in
so far as the inducer is concerned since he obviously
reflected in planning the crime.
When the victim is different from that intended (error in
personae), premeditation is NOT aggravating. However, if
the offender premeditated in the killing of ANY person
(general plan), it is proper to consider against the offender
this aggravating circumstance because whoever is killed by
him is contemplated in his premeditation.
Evident premeditation is INHERENT in the following crimes:
ARTEA
(a) Arson;
(b) Robbery;
(c) Theft;
(d) Estafa; or
(e) Analogous offenses.
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be
aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation
included the killing of the victim.
PEOPLE V. SUMALPONG (1998)
Briefly, the Court makes note of the following elements of
Evident Premeditation: (1) the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3)
sufficient lapse of time, between determination and
execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
Notes:
 The Court also noted in the case of People v. Bihat
that the essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
 The Court qualified in the case of People v. Lug-aw
that evident premeditation must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt in order to be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance.
 The Court further qualified in the case of People v.
Camilet that evident premeditation does not
consider ill feelings as proof of such circumstance.
 Such was not proven in the case of People v. Lim
 Such was proven in the case of People v.
Parangan, where one of the state witnesses
admitted to the fact that their shooting of the victim
was part of their mission
 The Court noted in the case of People v. Ilaoa that
there must be a time interval between the
meditation and the commission. He must have
done acts that are in preparation to the crime done.
Must not be under any influence that would render
him incapacitated to think (EX. Passion and
Obfuscation) The crime must be from accused’s
own volition.
 Furthermore, prior to the commission of the crime,
the accused must have resolved to commit the
crime. The crime must be a result of meditation,
calculation, or resolution.
 The Court noted in the case of People v. Ilaoa that
there must be a time interval between the
meditation and the commission. He must have
done acts that are in preparation to the crime done.
Must not be under any influence that would render
him incapacitated to think (EX. Passion and
Obfuscation) The crime must be from accused’s
own volition.
 Craft, Fraud, Disguise
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the way of
committing the crime.
Notes:
These circumstances are characterized by the intellectual
or mental rather than the physical means to which the
criminal resorts to carry out his design.
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have
been deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms
for the treacherous strategy, OR they may coexist
independently where they are adopted for different
purposes in the commission of the crime.
(a) CRAFT
It is the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of
the accused.
This is NOT aggravating:
1. Where the unlawful scheme could have been carried out
just the same even without the pretense (People vs. Aspili).
2. Craft partakes of an element of the offense.
(b) FRAUD
It is the use of insidious words and machinations used to
induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the
offender to carry out his design.
FRAUD CRAFT
There is direct inducement by insidious words
machinations.
The act of the accused was done in order not to arouse the
suspicion of the victim.
(c) DISGUISE
It is by resorting to any device to conceal identity.
Notes:
The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving
the way for identification does not render the aggravating
circumstance of disguise inapplicable. (People v. Cabato;
April 15, 1988).
The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to
conceal his identity.
The test of disguise is whether the device or connivance
resorted to did make identification more difficult, such as
the use of mask or false hair or beard.
PEOPLE V. MARQUEZ (1982)
Briefly, the Court held that the fact that the accused were
willing to pretend as Philippine Constabulary soldiers in
order to get inside the house and then rob the inhabitants
thereof is enough for the aggravating circumstance to
attach.
PEOPLE V. EMPACIS (1993)
Briefly, the Court held that when the accused pretended to
be buyers of the store so that they could get close to the
victim, such is sufficient for the aggravating circumstance to
attach.
Moreover, the Court provided for several stratagems and
ruses that constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud
or craft, e.g: where the accused —
a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy
gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they
thereafter robbed and killed;
b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and
through this artifice, entered the house of the victim whom
they thereupon robbed and killed;
c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by
this means gained entry into a house, in which they then
perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of
wine;
e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public
utility vehicle;
or
f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as
being thristy, asking for drink of water.
Superior Strength or Means to Weaken the Defense
“That (a) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (b)
means be employed to weaken the defense” (Par. 15,
Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the means
and ways of committing the crime.
Note: Paragraph 15 contemplates two aggravating
circumstances which qualifies a killing to murder (Article
248).
(a) ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is
considered that whenever there is a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing the
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in
the commission of the crime.
The prosecution should still prove that the assailants
purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the persons attacked
(People vs. Sansaet; February 6, 2002).
Mere superiority in numbers does not indicate the presence
of this circumstance. Nor can the circumstance be inferred
solely from the victim’s possibly weaker physical
constitution (Valenzuela vs. People; August 14, 2009).
Abuse of superior strength is absorbed and inherent in
treachery.
Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (band). The
two circumstances have the same essence which is
utilization of the combined strength of the assailants to
overpower the victim and consummate the killing (People
vs. Medrana; December 14, 1981)
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in parricide where the
husband kills the wife. It is generally accepted that the
husband is physically stronger than the wife.
Although the commission of the crime of coercion or forcible
abduction presupposes superiority of force on the part of
the offenders, yet when the strength availed of is greatly in
excess of that required for the realization of the offense, as
where the offenders were very much superior to the
complainant individually and collectively, abuse of superior
strength should be considered for the purpose of increasing
penalty (People vs. Pineda; March 26, 1932).
To take advantage of superior strength means to use
purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked (People vs.
Cabiling; December 17, 1976).
Where abuse of superior strength is to be estimated as an
aggravating circumstance from the mere fact that more than
one person participated in the offense, it must appear that
the accused cooperated together in some way designed to
weaken the defense (People vs. Cortes, G.R. No. 33614,
November 4, 1930).
(b) MEANS TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
Basis: This means that the offender employs means that
materially weaken the resisting power of the offended party.
Notes:
This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against
persons, and sometimes against person and property, such
as robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of employing means to
weaken the defense is absorbed in treachery (People vs.
Tunhawan; October 27, 1988).
PEOPLE V. CABATO (1988)
Briefly, the Court in this case held that even though there
was a discrepancy between the strengths of the accused
and the victim, the victim being of old age, and the accused,
a young man at his prime, the prosecution failed to show
that excessive force disproportional to the victim’s available
defense was purposely sought for by the accused.
Notes:
 The physical condition of the victim after the crime
will help tell whether or not there was abuse of
superior strength
 There must be a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor,
 The discrepancy must be known to the accused
and such discrepancy is selected or taken
advantage of by the accused in the commission of
the crime.
 The accused must purposely use excessive force
out of proportion to the means of the defense
available to the person attacked
PEOPLE V. RUELAN (1994)
Briefly, in this case, the victim was 76 years old and the
accused was 26. The latter also had an axe. The Court,
therefore, appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
Superior Strength.
Notes:
 In this case, it was pointed out yet again that the
aggravating circumstance in consideration must be
alleged in the Informations
PEOPLE V. JOSE, ET AL. (1971)
Briefly, in this case, the four accused, in conspiracy,
abducted the actress Jose and dropped her at a hotel. They
made her strip against her will and thereafter raped her.
Abuse of superior strength is appreciated because the
crime was committed by the four appellants in conspiracy
with one another.
Therefore, conspiracy may be indicative of abuse of
superior strength as long as the discrepancy is proved and
that he purposely sought to use excessive force out of
proportion to the means of the defense available to the
person attacked.
PEOPLE V. PADILLA (1994)
Briefly, in this case, the Court held that there was abuse of
superior strength owing to the fact that the accused was
armed with a powerful pistol while the victim only had a
piece of plywood as shield.
Treachery
There is treachery (alevosia) when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. (Par. 16, Article 14).
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the means
and ways of committing the crime.
CORE RULES REGARDING TREACHERY:
It is applicable ONLY to crimes against persons.
(Exceptions: People vs. Escote; People vs. Ancheta)
Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment
of crime, only its execution.
The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
Treachery ABSORBS the following aggravating
circumstances: BAM-TANC
1. Band;
2. Aid of armed men
3. Means employed to weaken the defense;
4. Taking advantage of public position;
5. Abuse of superior strength;
6. Nighttime; and
7. Craft, fraud and disguise.
Notes:
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation.
Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed may co-exist with treachery (People v. Cagoco;
October 6, 1933).
Treachery means that the offended party was not given
opportunity to make a defense (People vs. Tiozon; June 19,
1991).
The characteristic and unmistakable manifestation of
treachery is the deliberate, sudden, and unexpected attack
of the victim from behind, without any warning and without
giving him an opportunity to defend himself or repel the
initial assault. All three must concur; otherwise, there can
be no treachery.
When it is not shown that the principal by inducement
directed or induced the principal by direct participation to
adopt the means or methods actually used by the latter in
accomplishing the crime, treachery cannot be considered
as to the principal by inducement.
Treachery CANNOT be appreciated when:
(a) The meeting between the accused and the victim was
casual and the attack was done impulsively (People v.
Vilbar; February 1, 2012);
(b) The attack appeared to have been impulsively done, a
spur of the moment act in the heat of anger or extreme
annoyance (People v. Vilbar, id.);
(c) The encounter was a chance encounter (People vs.
Gonzalez; June 21, 2001);
(d) The attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated
discussion (People vs. Zeta; May 9, 2002);
(e) The victim had the opportunity to counter or evade the
attack, to defend himself or to escape (Ramos vs. People;
August 23, 1967); or
(f) The accused made his presence known before the
attack (People vs. Flores; February 29, 1972).
Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at
the spur of the moment, or those that were preceded by
heated altercations are generally NOT attended by
treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused deliberately
to employ a treacherous mode of attack.
See: People vs. Teehankee
Mere sudden and unexpected attack does not necessarily
give rise to treachery. It could have been done on impulse,
as a reaction to an actual or imagined provocation offered
by the victim (People vs. Sabanal; 1989).
In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously
adopted (People vs. Gonzales; June 13, 2012).
There is treachery even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden
and unexpected, with the victims having no opportunity to
repel it or defend themselves, for what is decisive in
treachery is that the execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to
retaliate (People vs. Badriago; May 8, 2009).
Treachery may be appreciated even if the crime against
person is complexed with another felony involving a
different classification under the Code.
THUS, treachery may be appreciated in robbery with
homicide although the latter is essentially a crime against
property.
Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide.
Neither does it constitute a crime especially punishable by
law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of
robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty therefor.
Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery
with homicide. Hence, treachery should be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide
for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime.
In the application of treachery as a generic aggravating
circumstance to robbery with homicide, the law looks at the
constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against
persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is
a crime against property.
Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of “homicide”
and not to the constituent crime of “robbery” of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide (People vs.
Ancheta; June 4, 2004).
When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against
all the offenders (People vs. Agpawan; August 25, 2000).
In the absence of conspiracy, treachery may be considered
only against the person who had knowledge of the same at
the time of the execution of the crime or his cooperation
therein (Par. 4, Article 62; People vs. Carandang, February
1930).
There is no treachery if the prosecution only proved the
events after the attack happened, but not the manner of the
attack commenced or how the act unfolded (People vs.
Calpito; November 27, 2003).
As a general rule, treachery must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence and it cannot be presumed.
Exception: Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if
the manner of attack is not shown (People v. Sanchez;
June 29, 2010).
When must treachery be present?
(a) When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be
present in the beginning of the assault.
(b) When the assault was not continuous, wherein there
was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was
present at the moment the fatal blow was given.
Treachery should be considered even if:
(a) The victim was not predetermined but there was a
generic intent to treacherously kill any person (Same rule
applies to evident premeditation).
(b) There was aberratio ictus (Rule is different as to evident
premeditation).
(c) There was error in personae (Rule is different as to
evident premeditation).
PEOPLE V. CASTILLO (1998)
Briefly, in this case, the Court held that treachery is
committed when two conditions concur, namely, that:
(1) the means, methods, and forms of execution employed
gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate[;]
(2) that such means, methods, and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person.”
In the case at bar, when the accused appeared from
nowhere and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he
was bidding goodbye to his friend, said action rendered it
difficult for the victim to defend himself.
PEOPLE V. SANGALANG (1974)
Briefly, in this case, the Court held that treachery qualifies
killing to murder, and that it absorbs the aggravating
circumstance of Band.
A group of 5 men shot and killed Cortez while he was up on
a coconut tree. When his wife came, they shot at her too.
She was constrained to leave and came back to find
husband dead. Cortez was unarmed and defenseless; the
assault was unexpected, there was no provocation, and the
surprise attack insured that the victim will be killed, without
any risk arising from any defense he could have made.
PEOPLE V. CRISOSTOMO (1988)
Briefly, in this case, Crisostomo passed by Geronimo’s
house and invited him to go someplace and have a drink.
Geronimo declined. Thereafter, Crisostomo shot and killed
Romeo who was standing near a store with his back to him.
The fact that Crisostomo shot and killed Romeo while his
back was turned to him qualifies the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
PEOPLE V. GUTIERREZ (1988)
Briefly, in this case, the Court held that an earlier altercation
negates the circumstance of treachery. Also, a supervening
event between altercation and assault removes the
preclusion of the same.
Mantuano was stabbed in the back and killed by Catalino.
Son Benjamin testified that his father Florentino and
Catalino had a fight; he tried to pacify them, to which
Catalino answered to the effect that he listened to Benjamin
(supervening event). However, Catalino stabbed the
unarmed and unsuspecting Florentino in the back.
PEOPLE V. VERCHEZ (1994)
Briefly, in this case, the Court clarified that there is no
treachery when the victim is aware of the conflict that may
ensue.
Accused was stopped by police officers at a subdivision
gate. He asked that they accompany him to his friends’
place. Upon arrival, they were fired at by his cohorts, killing
and injuring them.
Ignominy
“That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act” (Par.
17, Article 14)
It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime.
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the means
and ways of committing the crime.
Notes:
It must tend to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating or put the offended party to shame.
This aggravating circumstance is applicable to crimes
against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave
coercion and murder.
It is applicable in the crime of rape because by its nature
rape is a crime against chastity (e.g. “dog-style” rape is
ignominious).
It is inherent in libel and acts of lasciviousness.
If humiliation or putting the offended party to shame took
place after the death of the offended party, the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy is NOT applicable.
The moral suffering should pertain to the victim himself.
PEOPLE V. JOSE, supra
PEOPLE V. SIAO (2000)
Briefly, the case illustrates that dog-style rape is an
aggravating circumstance of ignominy. Here, the employer
Siao forced his houseboy Gimena to rape housegirl
Raymundo at gunpoint. He was convicted as principal by
induction of rape. When he refused, Siao said he would kill
both of them.
 Unlawful Entry
“There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a
way not intended for the purpose.” (Par. 18, Article 14)
Rationale: One, who acts, not respecting the walls erected
by men to guard their property and provide for their
personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater
audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity.
Notes:
As an aggravating circumstance, it must be a means to
effect entrance and not for escape.
It is not aggravating in the crime of trespass to dwelling as
unlawful entry is inherent therein.
Dwelling and unlawful entry are taken separately as
aggravating circumstances in murders committed in a
dwelling (People vs. Barruga; March 27, 1935).
PEOPLE V. BAELLO (1993)
Totong Baello and Jerry robbed a barangay captain’s
house, killing his daughter in the process. They entered
through a second floor window and were apprehended
when Baello’s relative admitted that it was him who brought
the stolen TV in his house. They were convicted as
conspirators.
Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
“That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken” (Par. 19, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the means
and ways of committing the crime.
Notes:
The circumstance is aggravating ONLY in those cases
where the offender resorted to any of said means to enter
the house. If it is broken in order to get out of the place, it is
not an aggravating circumstance.
It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered
the building. What aggravates the liability of the offender is
the breaking of the part of the building as a means of the
commission of the crime.
Breaking is lawful when:
(a) An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a
door or window of any building in which the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be (Sec. 11, Rule
113, ROC);
(b) An officer. If refused admittance, may break open any
door or window to execute the search warrant or liberate
himself (Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC).
With Aid of Persons under 15 or by Motor Vehicle
“That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons
under 15 years of age, or (2) by means of motor vehicles,
airships, or other similar means” (Par. 20, Article 14)
Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the means
and ways of committing the crime.
What are the aggravating circumstances contemplated
under this paragraph?
(a) With the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age
Note: It is intended to repress the frequent practice
resorted to by professional criminals to avail themselves of
minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility.
(b) By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar
means
Notes:
It is intended to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee
and abscond once the same is committed.
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused
used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying away the effect thereof, and in facilitating their
escape (People vs. Espejo; December 19, 1970).
"Other similar means” refer to motorized vehicles or other
efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or
airplane. It is not aggravating when used only to facilitate
the escape or use was merely incidental and not purposely
sought to facilitate the commission of the offense.
The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if
the same was perpetrated by means thereof (People vs.
Enguito; February 28, 2000).
In People vs. Mallari (June 17, 2003), the accused
deliberately used his truck in pursuing the victim. Upon
catching up with him, accused hit him with the truck, as a
result of which the victim died instantly. It is clear that the
truck was the means used by accused to perpetrate the
killing of the victim.
 Cruelty

“That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be

deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission” (Par. 21, Article 14)

Basis: There is greater perversity as shown by the way of

committing the crime. REQUISITES: De–Un

1. The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing

other wrong; and

2. The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the

purpose of the offender.

Notes:

There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in

making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the
criminal act (People vs. Dayug; September 30, 1926).

Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of the physical

suffering of the victim.

Cruelty is inherent in the crimes against persons, and

mutilation.

For cruelty to be appreciated as a generic aggravating

circumstance there must be positive proof that the wounds
found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was
still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong physical
suffering (People vs. Pacris; March 5, 1991).

For cruelty to exist, there must be proof showing that the

accused delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and moral
pain in the consummation of the criminal act (People vs.
Catian; January 24, 2002).