Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. – 20.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years
The following are aggravating circumstances: of age, or by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 21. That the wrong be done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the What is an aggravating circumstance?
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in A circumstance which,
the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. If present in the commission of a felony and
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious Not offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance,
ungratefulness. Increases the penalty to be imposed upon the accused to its maximum period
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his Without however,
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their Exceeding the penalty prescribed by the law for the felony committed,
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. Or changes the nature of the felony
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or To a more serious one and
by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of Makes the accused liable for the penalty prescribed by the law
the offense. For the felony as charged.
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 What is the basis of aggravating circumstances?
a band. On the greater criminal perversity of the offender as shown by the:
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, o Means employed
earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. o Time
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who o Place, and
insure or afford impunity. o Occasion of the commission of the felony
9. That the accused is a recidivist. o The material execution of the act, or
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been o In attributes
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the o Private relations or
same title of this Code. o Other personal cause
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it What is the quantity of proof required?
attaches a lighter penalty. Clear and conclusive evidence
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. Must be based on positive and conclusive proof, not merely on hypothetical facts,
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, no matter how truthful suppositions and presumptions may seem.
stranding of a vessel of intentional damage thereto, derailment of a The list is exclusive.
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. Is “immoral motive” and “drug addiction” aggravating circumstances?
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.  NO. It does not fall under any of the aggravating circumstances
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to enumerated
weaken the defense.  Unlike mitigating circumstances, the enumeration of aggravating
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). circumstances does NOT include “similar in nature” or “analogous” to
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the those mentioned
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which  Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and no person should be
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself brought within their terms who is not clearly within them
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add HOWEVER,
ignominy to the natural effects of the act. Under Sec. 26 of RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 approved on June 2,
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. 2002 and took effect on July 4, 2002)
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended Influence of dangerous drugs in the commission of the crime is considered as a
for the purpose. qualifying aggravating circumstance.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
What are the kinds of aggravating circumstances?
KIND DEFINITION EXAMPLES
Generic Those that can generally 1. Taking advantage of public
apply to position
ALL crimes 2. Committing the crime in
contempt of or with insult to
public authorities
3. Committing the crime in
disregard of the respect due
the offended party on account
of his rank, age or sex or
That the crime be committed in
the dwelling of the offended
party if the latter has not given
provocation
4. Committing the crime with
abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness
5. Committing the crime in the
palace of the Chief Executive,
in his presence or where public
authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their functions or
in a place dedicated to
religious worship
6. Committing the crime at
nighttime, in an uninhabited
place or by a band
7. Recidivism
8. Reiteracion or habituality
9. Employing craft, fraud or
disguise
10. Committing the crime after an
unlawful entry
11. Breaking a wall, roof, floor,
door or window
12. Committing a crime with the
aid of persons under 15 years
old or by means of motor
vehicle, airships or other
similar means
13. Treachery (generic in robbery
with homicide)
Specific Those that apply only to 1. Treachery
PARTICULAR crimes 2. Cruelty (in crimes against
persons)
3. Ignominy (in crimes against
chastity)
Qualifying Those that 1. Treachery (qualifies homicide
to murder)
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
CHANGE THE NATURE 2. Abuse of confidence (qualifies
of the crime the taking of personal
property to qualified theft)
3. Unlawful entry (qualifies taking
of personal property from
theft to robbery)
Inherent Those that already FORM 1. Sex (in rape and in other
PART of the commission crimes against chastity)
of the felony AND 2. Dwelling (in trespass to
DO NOT HAVE the effect dwelling OR violation of
of increasing the penalty domicile)
3. Abuse of public position (in
malversation of public funds or
property)
4. Breaking of wall, roof, floor,
door, or window (in robbery
with the use of force upon
things)
Special Those that arise under 1. Use of unlicensed firearm (in
SPECIAL CONDITIONS homicide or murder)
which increase the penalty 2. Abuse of public office in the
to the maximum period commission of the crime
without however 3. Complex crimes (Art. 48)
exceeding the penalty 4. Penalty imposed for crimes
prescribed by the law committed in error in personae
5. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
6. Use of unlicensed firearm in
brigandage (Art. 306)
7. Intimidation with the use of a
firearm (in robbery on a street,
road, highway or alley Art. 295)
What is the difference between generic aggravating and special aggravating
circumstances?
Generic Special
Those that generally apply to ALL Those which arise under special
crimes conditions
Paragraphs: Examples:
1-6, 9, 10, 14, 18-20 o Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
o Complex Crimes (Art. 48)
Effect of increasing the penalty to its maximum period, BUT
It CANNOT increase the same to the next higher degree
It DOES NOT change the character
of the offense
Must always be alleged and charged in the information
Must be proven during the trial in order to be appreciated
It CAN be offset by an ordinary CANNOT be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
What is the difference between qualifying aggravating and generic aggravating? 5. If the accused were not police officers, they could not have terrified the
Generic Qualifying Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand
Increases the penalty to the Changes the nature of the felony over their money.
maximum period 6. When the accused effected abduction by availing himself of his official
MAY be offset by an ordinary CANNOT be offset by an ordinary position of municipal policeman, for he was wearing his uniform.
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance 7. When the accused committed crime of robbery with homicide with the
aid of a gun which he had been authorized to carry as a peace officer.
NOTES: He deliberately broke the law which it was his sworn duty to uphold, and
1. Both qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged robbed peaceful citizens whom he was sworn to protect, with
in the complaint or information. Otherwise, it cannot be appreciated to malevolence surpassing any displayed by ordinary malefactors.
raise the accused’s sentence 8. When the accused policeman used the service revolver issued to him
2. Though stated, the information must be alleged with specificity
qualifying the killing to murder. CANNOT BE APPRECIATED IN THE FOLLOWING
3. Accused’s plea of guilty admits only the aggravating circumstances 1. Crime committed through negligence or carelessness
alleged in the complaint or information 2. When the accused did not make use of the prestige of his office as a
4. When the accused pleads NOT GUILTY to the offense charged, he member of the House of Representatives at the time of the commission
shall be deemed to have denied all the material allegations in the of the crime of illegal gambling
complaint or information. It becomes the duty of the prosecution to 3. When it was not expressly alleged in the complaint or information
prove all these aggravating circumstances by clear and convincing 4. When no evidence is presented in court to prove this aggravating
evidence. circumstance
5. When it is an integral element of the crime such as: (M-F-P)
a. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217)
First circumstance: (advantage of public position)
b. Falsification of a public or official document by a public officer
That advantage be taken (Art. 171)
By the offender c. Fraud against the public treasury (Art. 213)
Of his public position 6. When sufficient provocation immediately preceded the crime
7. When the crime was committed out of passion or obfuscation
What are the requisites? (P-U) 8. The instinctive reaction of a policeman against a vicious assault against
1. Accused is a public official his brother. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had his pistol
2. Accused must use the (I-P-A) with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly.
a. Influence, 9. When the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
b. Prestige, or occupying his position
c. Ascendency 10. The mere fact that the accused is a policeman and used his government
Which such office gives him as a means by which he realized his issued revolver to kill the victim is not sufficient to establish that he
purpose. misused his public position in the commission of the crime.

To appreciate this circumstance, inquire: Second circumstance: (in contempt or insult to public authorities)
Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime? That the crime
Be committed
CASE LAW EXAMPLES In contempt or
1. Policeman on guard duty who could not have maltreated the prisoner- With insult
victim if he didn’t have access to the cell where the victim was confined. To the public authorities
2. When the accused identified himself as policeman although in civilian
clothes, and used his firearm in shooting the deceased.
3. When the accused used their authority as members of the police and What is the basis?
constabulary to disarm the deceased before shooting him Greater criminal perversity as shown by his lack of respect to the public
4. If he had not been a councilman he could not have induced the injured authorities
parties to pay these alleged fines. Even if a councilman is not an official
designated by law to collect public fines, it does not disprove the fact Nature?
that the accused did by taking advantage of his public position deceive Generic aggravating circumstance
and defraud the injured parties out of the money which they paid him.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
What are the requisites? (E-N-K) On account of his
1. The public authority must be engaged in the performance of his official Rank,
duty Age, or
2. The public authority must not be the person against whom the crime is Sex, or
committed That it be committed
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority In the dwelling of
The offended party,
Who is a ‘public authority’? If the latter has not given provocation.
A person in authority
What are the four aggravating circumstances here? (R-A-S-D)
Who is a ‘person in authority’? 1. Act committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
Any person party on account of his rank
Directly vested with jurisdiction, 2. Act committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
Whether as an individual or party on account of his age
As a member of some court or 3. Act committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended
Government-owned or –controlled corporation, party on account of his sex
Board or 4. It be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has
Commission. not given provocation
The governor or mayor,
Councilor and What is the basis?
The barangay chairman and chairman are Based on the greater criminal perversity of the offender as shown by the
Also persons in authority. (G-M-C-B) personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of
the crime
REMEMBER: This applies to persons in authority ONLY.
What is the nature?
 Aggravating circumstances of rank, age, and sex are specific in nature.
 They only apply to crimes against persons or honor.
CASE EXAMPLE
 It is not proper to consider these circumstances in crimes against property.
When the accused stabbed the victim at a public peace rally where many public
authorities were present. The place of the rally and of the crime was a public  Robbery with homicide  crime against property. Homicide is a mere
plaza, directly opposite the municipal building. The defendant’s denial that public incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the
authorities were there present cannot be accepted. criminal.
 Justice Albert: Whenever there is a difference in social condition between
the offender and the offended party, this aggravating circumstance
Does this apply to a mere agent of a person in authority? sometimes is present
NO. A person in authority is any person who, by direct provision of law or by
election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the What are the requisites?
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property 1. There must be evidence
such as: 2. The accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex, rank or
o Barangay councilman age of the offended party
o Barangay policeman
o Barangay leader NOTE: It is not enough that the offended party is a woman, a person of higher
o Officers and members of the Barangay Community Brigades, and rank or older than the offender.
o Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
May these four aggravating circumstances be considered separately if they
concur in the same case?
Third circumstance: YES. If their elements are distinctively perceived and can subsist independently,
That the act be committed revealing a greater degree of perversity.
With insult or
In disregard of the respect
Due the offended party DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO RANK
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 It is a generic aggravating circumstance.
o There must be proof which would clearly demonstrate the accused HOWEVER, there are certain crimes where disregard of respect due to sex is not
deliberately intended to act with insult or in disregard of the respect due the aggravating because it is either:
victim on account of his rank o Inherent in the commission of the crime, or
o There must be proof of the specific fact or circumstance that the accused o Is part of the elements of the crimes
deliberately intended to insult the rank of the victim These are crimes of:
o When the accused articulated his hatred against all policemen in general o Rape
does not by itself suffice to prove this circumstance o Parricide, or
o It cannot be demonstrated on circumstances that the accused knew the rank o Crimes against chastity such as:
or office of the victim especially so when no prior facts were established to  Seduction
show why the accused would harbor so grave a grudge against the victim  Abduction
simply because he was a man in police uniform  Acts of lasciviousness
o Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
CASE LAW EXAMPLES 1. The accused killed a female relative of such killer
1. Murder of the Assistant Chief of the Personnel Transaction of the CSC 2. The 35-year-old accused was armed and murdered the victim who was
by a clerk not able to offer any resistance. The accused needlessly removed her
2. Murder by Army Col./Army Gen. by a private citizen blouse.
3. Accused chief killing the chief of police
4. Murder by a pupil of his teacher There must be evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult
5. The killing of a Spanish consul by his subordinate chancellor the sex of the victim.
NOT appreciated in the following circumstances
DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO AGE 1. When there is no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to
offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to
o There must be sufficient evidence to prove that they deliberately intended to her womanhood
offend or insult the age of the victim 2. The fact that the murder victim is a woman does not per se constitute
o Deliberate intent is necessary disregard of respect due her sex
o The mere fact that the victim was 74 years old does not warrant the 3. When the accused mistook the victim for a man
appreciation of this circumstance in the absence of proof that the accused 4. When a crime was committed through negligence or carelessness
deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the offended party (because deliberate intent is necessary)
5. When sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act
CASE LAW EXAMPLES 6. When in committing the crime, the accused acted under an impulse so
1. The deceased was an octogenarian, accused was 45 years old powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
2. Victim was a sexagenarian while the accused was only 27 years old 7. Mistake in the blow
3. It is considered present when the offended person, by reason of his 8. Mistake in identity
age, could be the father of the victim. Even more so when the victim 9. When the crime was committed at the spur of the moment
was the accused’s father-in-law. It is ingrained in Philippine culture that 10. When the crime was committed upon an accidental meeting or
those advanced in age are respected especially in provinces. encounter between the offender and the offended party
4. When one of the murder case was a 12-year-old boy (tender age)
5. The victim was only 3 years old (tender age) THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION
DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO SEX
What is the basis?
What is the basis? Greater criminal perversity of the offender who violates the sanctity of privacy the
Greater perversity of the accused who, instead of giving due respect to the law accords to the human abode
woman for being part of the weaker sex, takes advantage of her weakness in
order to facilitate the crime Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance
What is the nature? What is ‘dwelling’?

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
The place of abode,
Where the offended party resides and
Which satisfies the requirements
Of his domestic life.
Why is dwelling an aggravating circumstance?
 Because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode
 One’s dwelling place is a “sanctuary worth of respect” and that one who
slanders another in the latter’s house is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere
 The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner
 He who goes to another’s house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is
more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere
What are the requisites? (D-P-E)
1. Crime must be committed in the dwelling of the offended party
2. Offended party has not given provocation
3. There must be specific evidence to show that the offender intentionally
and deliberately disregarded the respect the law accords to another’s
dwelling
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. When robbery with rape was committed in the domicile of the victim
without provocation on her part
2. When the deceased was murdered in his residence
3. When the victim was raped in her own house
4. When robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is
committed in the house of the victim. It is aggravating here because this
class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing
the sanctity of the offended party’s house
5. When the victim was shot in the porch of his house
6. When the victim was stabbed while standing near the door of his house
7. When the victim was shot as he opened the door of his house
8. When the victim was shot on the staircase of his house
9. When the victim, who was inside his house, was shot from outside
NOTE: 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 house, although the
assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from
without.
10. When the victim was shot from under the house
11. While inside the dwelling, the accused bound the victim’s hands and
took him to a place near the house where he was murdered. This is
aggravating because the act performed cannot be divided or the unity
resulting from its details be broken up.
12. When the crime was committed in a dependency of the house
13. When abduction was committed in the house of the offended party
14. When the victim was taken from his house in the crime of illegal
detention
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
15. When the victim, who was on the stairs of his house, was asked to
come down by four armed men who immediately grabbed and
kidnapped him
16. When the deceased was murdered in one of his two houses
17. When the victim was raped in a bedspace she was renting in a boarding
house
NOTE: Although the victim was merely renting a bedspace in a
boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a
‘dwelling.’ It is NOT necessary that the victim owns the place where he
lives or dwells.
18. When the husband killed her estranged wife in a place she was
occupying which was not their conjugal home
19. When the wife committed adultery in the conjugal home
The dwelling need NOT be owned by the victim
1. When the deceased was killed in a house where he was merely an
invited guest
One does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the house
of another because as an invited guest (or a housemaid), he, the
stranger is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same
intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a
brief moment, home to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short
moment.
2. When the deceased was killed in a makeshift room of a motor shop
owned by her victim
3. When the deceased was killed in a house where she lived although she
was not the owner
Where dwelling is NOT appreciated
1. When the accused and the victim live in the same house
2. When the crime was committed in a place not devoted to dwelling
3. When the victim gave provocation because he loses his right to the
respect and consideration due him in his own house
4. When the deceased was killed in a place that was not an integral part of
her home
5. When the deceased was killed in his house by the accused while in the
act of adultery with the latter’s wife
NOTE: Although the Code provides that this circumstance cannot be
properly taken into account if the provocation was given by the offended
party, this is only true when there exists a close relation between the
provocation and the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the
person from whom the provocation came.
6. Where the victim was called to come down from his house and killed in
the immediate vicinity thereof
7. When the victim was attacked while seated on a bench outside the
house. Although the bench was beside the steps leading to the door of
the house, it cannot be considered as an integral part of a dependency
of the victim’s dwelling
8. When dwelling is inherent in the crime of robbery with force upon things
9. Violation of domicile (Art. 128)
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 10. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280)
11. Robbery in an inhabited place (Art. 299) because it is not necessary that
the offender should enter the inhabited house
12. When the crime was committed through negligence or carelessness
13. When the sufficient provocation immediately preceded the act
14. When the crime was committed out of passion or obfuscation
15. When the crime was committed at the spur of the moment
16. When there was merely an accidental encounter between the accused
and the victim
Dwelling may be appreciated despite the provocation of the victim, if the
provocation was not the immediate to the commission of the crime
 The provocation contemplated here is one that is sufficient and immediate to
the commission of the crime.
 The invasion of the privacy of the offended party’s house must have been
the direct and immediate consequence of the provocation given by the
latter.
 People v. Molina: such is not the situation in the case at bar because the
accused purposely entered the victim’s abode with the intention to kill him at
least six hours after the accused’s mauling.
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
While dwelling may be appreciated as inherent in a case of simple robbery, it has
been ruled that the same cannot be said when the offense is robbery with
violence or intimidation against persons, because the latter crime can be
performed without need of violating the abode of the victim and without the
necessity of transgressing the sanctity of his home.
Fourth circumstance:
That the act be committed with
Abuse of confidence or
Obvious ungratefulness
What are the two aggravating circumstances?
1. Abuse of confidence, and
2. Obvious ungratefulness
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
What is the basis?
Greater criminal perversity of the accused who takes advantage of the trust and
confidence reposed upon him by the offended party in order to facilitate the
commission of the crime
Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance
Qualifying aggravating circumstance in:
1. Qualified Theft (Art. 310)
2. Qualified Seduction (Art. 337)
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
What are the requisites? (T-A-F)
1. The offended party trusted the offender
2. The offender abused such trust by committing the crime against the
offended party
3. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that the former
would not abuse such confidence
Relationship of trust between the accused and the offended party is
indispensable
 It is necessary that there be a relation of trust and confidence between
the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed, and
that the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime.
 It is also essential that the confidence between the parties be the means
of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage
of the offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse such
confidence.
The confidence between the accused and the offended party must be immediate
and personal
 This is essential to give the accused some advantage or make it easier
for him to commit the criminal act.
 The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the
crime
 People v. Lomerio: the bare allegation that the victim’s mother asked
the accused to fetch her children from Antipolo to Marikina does not
prove that she reposed such confidence in the accused that he could
have used to his advantage in committing the crime of rape.
Abuse of confidence when the victim provided shelter to the accused
People v. Syou: where the accused lived in the house of the offended party who
gave him shelter out of charity, the Court held that in taking the money of his
benefactor, the accused gravely abused the confidence reposed in him when,
from charity, he was permitted to lodge in the house.
Abuse of confidence where a domestic servant in charge of a child, poisons and
causes the death of the child
This was present when the accused was the domestic servant of the family and
was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.
Abuse of confidence between sweethearts
A jealous lover decided to kill his sweetheart.
Abuse of confidence in robbery by a servant of his master
The defendant was a trusted “house boy” who was allowed to enter and clean
the room of the accused and to close the flower shop.
Abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness when the accused was treated
like a member of the family
That confidence facilitated the commission of robbery with homicide
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias

Abuse of confidence when the victim was killed in his house where the accused
was a guest
AC of dwelling and abuse of confidence was appreciated.
Abuse of confidence is NOT appreciated
1. Being friends does not imply abuse of confidence
2. On the bare allegation that the accused is the nephew of the murder
victim
3. When the victims and the accused just met
4. If the victim already lost confidence in the accused at the time of the
commission of the crime
People v. Luchico: When the accused raped the offended party she
had already lost confidence in him from the moment he took the liberty
of making an indecent proposal which compelled her to arm herself with
a penknife. In the present case, it cannot be said that the fact of the
accused being the offended party’s master facilitated the attainment of
his lustful purpose.
5. When the relationship is between the accused and the victim’s father,
not between the accused and the victim – there is no immediate and
personal relationship between the accused and the deceased
6. In the absence of any showing that the abuse of confidence facilitated
the commission of the crime
7. Inviting the accused to go night clubbing and accommodating him in the
victim’s car did not show confidence
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
What is the basis?
Greater criminal perversity of the offender,
Who instead of being grateful to the offended party’s kindness, favor and
assistance,
Commits a crime against him
Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance
Obvious ungratefulness necessitates evidence of benefits given by the victim to
the accused
This cannot be appreciated if there is no evidence as to what generosities and
the extent thereof were received by the accused from the victim.
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. One of the accused-brother took possession of all the valuables that the
deceased had in his body. The brother-victim instituted him as his
universal heir.
2. The accused was employed by the victim as the overseer and in charge
of carpentry work. He had free access to the house of the victim who
was very kind to him, his family, and who helped him solved his
problems.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
3. The accused had for a number of years been allowed by the deceased
to live and even maintain a store in the premises of the company
without requiring him to pay rent. He was also given a cockfight site
where he could hold cockfighting.
4. The victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the
assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast.
5. When the accused was an employee of the victim and lived with him in
the same dwelling
6. Being the security guard of the bank, the deceased was his superior, a
manager-cashier. It was his duty precisely to defend the deceased from
any aggressor.
7. When the victim knew the accused because the latter earlier convinced
her father to allow him to stay in their house
8. Where the accused killed his father-in-law who supported him and in
whose house he lived
Obvious ungratefulness NOT appreciated
1. When there is nothing to show that the assailant and his common-law
wife reposed in one another any special confidence that could be
abused, or any gratitude owed by one to the other that ought to be
respected
2. The accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-powered
firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine
gun point which certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation
Fifth circumstance:
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
What is the basis?
Greater criminal perversity of the offender who disregards the respect due to the
place where the crime was committed
Nature?
All generic aggravating circumstances.
Except: “place dedicated to religious worship” since it is an element of “offending
the religious feelings”
What are the circumstances?
1. Crime committed in the place of the Chief Executive
2. Crime committed in the presence of the Chief Executive
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
4. A place dedicated to religious worship
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Place where public authorities are Contempt or insult to public
engaged in the discharge of their authorities
Aggravating in view of the deliberate disregard of the respect due to the Palace, duties
which is the official residence and place of work of the highest official in the land. Public authorities in performance of Public authorities in performance of
public duties public duties
Does the Chief Executive have to be in the palace? In their office Performing duties outside their office
NO. It is enough that the crime was committed in the Palace of the Chief Public authority may be the offended Public authority should not be the
Executive and that there be specific evidence to show that the accused party offended party
deliberately disregarded the respect due to the Palace.
It is not aggravating when the crime was committed in a room adjoining the
NOT aggravating when justice of the peace court
1. Crime committed through negligence or carelessness.
2. Sufficient provocation immediately preceded the crime PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
3. When the crime was committed in a fit of passion or obfuscation on the
part of the accused This is not considered as aggravating in the crime of “offending the religious
feelings” because the place of religious worship is an essential element of the
PRESENCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE crime.

It does not require that the crime be committed in this Palace.
It may be considered aggravating although the Chief Executive may be outside
the Palace and may or may not be in the performance of his duties.
It is necessary that there be specific evidence to show that the accused
deliberately disregarded the presence of the Chief Executive when he committed
the crime.
Is it required that there be a religious minister or ceremony in said place?
NO. It is enough that the crime was committed in a place dedicated to religious
worship, because the place deserves to be respected.
Aggravating in: rape committed in a chapel
NOT aggravating: when accused had no intention to kill at the time she entered
the chapel

NOT aggravating when Sixth circumstance:

1. Crime committed through negligence or carelessness That the crime be committed in the
2. Sufficient provocation immediately preceded the crime Nighttime or
3. When the crime was committed in a fit of passion or obfuscation on the In an uninhabited place, or
part of the accused By a band,
Whenever such circumstances
PLACE WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE May facilitate the commission of the offense
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES
Whenever more than three armed malefactors
It is enough that the accused committed the crime in a place used by the public Shall have acted together
authorities in the discharge of their duties. In the commission of an offense,
It shall be deemed to have been
It is NOT necessary that the public authority should be in the actual performance Committed by a band
of his official duty; otherwise, this will directly collide with the aggravating
circumstance of the crime being committed “in contempt of or with insult to the What is the basis?
public authorities.” Greater criminal perversity of the offender,
As shown by the time,
What is the difference between place where public authorities are engaged in the Place and
discharge of their duties (par. 5) and contempt or insult to public authorities (par. Manner of committing the crime.
2)?
(Reyes, 2012) Nature?
All generic aggravating circumstances

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
What are the 3 circumstances? (N-U-B) What are the two tests in determining nocturnity?
1. Nighttime 1. Objective Test
2. Uninhabited place Nighttime is aggravating because the darkness facilitated the
3. Band commission of the offense (by insuring immunity from capture)

They may be considered separately against the accused if their elements are 2. Subjective Test
distinctively perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree Nighttime is aggravating because the darkness was purposely sought
of perversity. by the offender

What are the requisites? (F-S-A) NOTE: It is NOT aggravating when it fails to pass the objective and subjective
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime tests.
2. When it is especially sought for by the accused to ensure the
commission of the crime or for purposes of impunity The crime must be commenced and accomplished at nighttime
3. When the offender took advantage of nighttime, uninhabited place or 1. Not considered aggravating when the rape committed was the result of
band for purposes of impunity a succession of acts which took place within the period of two hours,
commencing at 5pm and ending at 7pm.
NIGHTTIME 2. Not aggravating when the safe was thrown to the bay at night but the
taking of the money was done during daytime.
What is ‘nighttime’?
That period of darkness Instances when nighttime was specially sought for
Beginning at the end of dusk and 1. 8pm: accused sought it in order to realize the crime of homicide with
Ending at dawn; more ease
Civil Code: From sunset to sunrise 2. The design to murder the victim had been hatched as early as June 12
but the conspirators purposely waited until the nighttime of the next day
Is late afternoon nighttime? to carry out their plan
NO. There must be a convincing showing that the accused had purposely sought 3. When the accused arrived at the house of the victims at 7:20PM and
such time to facilitate the commission of the crime or prevent its discovery. proceeded to wait patiently until 4:00AM when his intended victims were
Is 6:00 PM nighttime? already asleep
NO. Dusk was just beginning and there was still twilight. Darkness had not 4. When the accused ascertained whether the occupants of the house
completely set in, and therefore, the night had not yet begun. were asleep, thereby indicating the desire to carry out the plot with the
least detection or to ensure its consummation with a minimum of
Is it aggravating when the accused learned about the plan to kill the victim only in resistance from the inmates of the house.
the evening of the commission of the offense? 5. Even if there was no direct evidence showing that the conspirators
NO. Here, it is merely incidental. sought the nighttime to commit the robbery with homicide, the fact that
they lingered in the restaurant close to three hours before carrying out
When is nighttime aggravating? (S-A-F) their plan to rob it indicates that they waited for darkness to deepen to
1. It is specially sought by the offender; or better pursue their evil scheme and to ensure their escape under cover
2. It was taken advantage of him; or of the night.
3. It facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the offender’s 6. The accused admitted that he and his co-conspirators waited for
immunity from capture. nighttime before committing the robbery to better accomplish their plan.

NOTES: When nighttime is NOT aggravating

1. The mere fact that the offense was committed at night will not suffice to
sustain a finding of nocturnity.
2. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance.
3. A bare statement that the crime was committed in the darkness of the
night does not make nighttime aggravating.
4. Although nighttime was not especially sought for, it is still aggravating if
it facilitated the commission of the crime or the offender took advantage
of the same to commit the crime.
1. When there is no evidence that it is especially sought for
2. When there was merely a chance or accidental encounter between the
accused and the victim
3. When all the accused trailed the flashlight on their faces by reason of
which the victim recognized them
4. If the accused would commit the crime regardless of the time
5. When the scene of the crime is sufficiently illuminated so as to identify
the accused

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 6. When the darkness of the night was merely incidental to the collision
between the 2 vehicles which caused the heated argument and the
eventual stabbing of the victim
When nighttime IS aggravating
1. When the accused took advantage of the darkness to flee from the
crime scene undetected. It was purely by chance that at least one of the
accused was identified by two witnesses.
2. Aggravating notwithstanding the use of flashlight in entering the hut and
illumined the rape scene. The fact that they brought with them a
flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in
darkness.
3. When it concurs with the intent or design of the offender to capitalize on
the intrinsic impunity afforded by the darkness of night
4. Arson: When the three defendants selected nighttime to maliciously
and voluntarily set fire to the house of the victim or when the fire was
started about 1:00 or 2:00 AM, and the accused took advantage of the
nighttime for the purpose of concealing the crime
5. The fact that the accused lit a matchstick does not negate the presence
of said aggravating circumstance
Treachery absorbs nocturnity
1. Nocturnity is absorbed in treachery and cannot be appreciated as a
generic aggravating circumstance
2. The crime is aggravated by treachery when the accused took advantage
of nighttime to cover up their movements and commenced attack on
their victims when the victims were unaware of their approach and their
intention, were in no position to offer any defense.
Movie example of treachery with nighttime: TROY – wooden horse
UNINHABITED PLACE
What is an ‘uninhabited place’?
One where there are no houses at all,
A place at a considerable distance from the town, or
Where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other
Criterion in determining if uninhabited place is aggravating
1. Determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the
crime but whether the place of the commission, there was reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help.
2. 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.
3. In a prosecution for robbery with homicide, there were no houses at the
crime scene or that the houses were very far from the place. The
nearest house was more or less 1 km away.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
4. The scene of the crime was an uninhabited place because it was
difficult for the offended party to receive any help, while the assailants
could easily have escaped punishment.
NOTES:
1. The uninhabited place must be deliberately selected to perpetrate the
crime.
2. If the uninhabited place is not specifically sought for to perpetrate the
crime, the same cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
3. If it is not apparent from the records that the defendants selected the
place of the commission of the crime either to better obtain their object
without interference or to secure themselves against detection and
punishment, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
4. A chance encounter between the offender and the offended party in an
uninhabited place does not make the same an aggravating
circumstance.
Is an abandoned subdivision an uninhabited place?
YES. The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain their
purpose without interference and to secure themselves against detection and
punishment.
Homicide committed in a banca at sea
It is considered aggravating because it was difficult for the offended party to
receive any help while the aggressors could have easily escaped punishment.
BAND
What is a ‘band’?
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.”
What arms may be included?
Guns, revolvers, bolos, daggers, clubs, lantacas, swords, rifles, lances, a small
cannon, stoners and other deadly weapons.
NOTES:
1. More than three (3) malefactors should be armed (at least four)
2. If there is no evidence that all four accused were armed at the time of
the perpetration of the crime, band is not an aggravating circumstance.
3. Even if there are four offenders, but only three or less are armed, it is
NOT a band.
4. The mere fact that there are more than 3 armed men at the scene of the
crime does NOT prove the existence of a band, if only one of them
committed the crime while the others were not aware of the commission
of the crime.
5. Band is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide. It is NOT an element of said crime.
6. Band absorbs “abuse of superior strength”
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 7. It must be alleged in the information Eighth circumstance: (aid of armed men)
8. Band is inherent in brigandage. That the crime be committed
With the aid of armed men or
Brigandage is committed by more than three armed persons, who form Persons who
a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, Insure or
or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, Afford
or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. Impunity

Seventh circumstance: What is the basis?

That the crime be committed On the greater criminal perversity of the offender who is emboldened into the
On the occasion of a commission of the crime by the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
Conflagration, impunity.
Shipwreck,
Earthquake, Nature?
Epidemic, or Qualifying aggravating circumstance
Other calamity or
Misfortune What are the requisites? (Reyes, 2012) – (T-A-R)
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
What is the basis? directly or indirectly.
Shows the debased form of criminality on the part of the offender who, in the 2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or
midst of great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their Relied upon them when the crime was committed.
suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
Aid or armed men vs. Band
Nature?
Qualifying aggravating circumstance Aid of armed men Band
Enough that there are at least two There should be at least four (4)
CASE LAW DOCTRINES: persons who are armed armed men
1. When a person is killed on the occasion of any of these calamities, the Actual aid of armed men is not At least four (4) armed men should
killing constitutes murder and not merely homicide. necessary. Psychological reliance on have acted together in the
2. When the personal property is taken on the occasion of these the aid of armed men is sufficient. commission of the crime
calamities, the taking constitutes qualified theft and not simple theft. Qualifying aggravating circumstance Generic aggravating circumstance
3. Development of engine trouble at sea is a misfortune BUT it does not
come within the context of the phrase “other calamity or misfortune.” EXAMPLES:
4. The offender should deliberately take advantage of the occasions in 1. The evidence showed that when the accused went up to the victim’s
order to facilitate the commission of the crime. house, he was followed by the other accused who were armed with
rifles and revolvers.
It is not enough that the offense was committed on the enumerated 2. While the accused was raping the victim inside the latter’s house, his
occasions. There should be specific facts or circumstances to show four companions, who were all armed with guns, stood guard at the gate
that the accused deliberately sought any of these occasions in order to to intimidate the neighbors and prevent anyone from coming to help the
facilitate the commission of the crime or intentionally take advantage of victim.
any of these occasions.
NOTES:
5. It cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance when the crime is 1. Aid of armed men qualifies killing to murder.
committed through: 2. Aid of armed men or persons who afford impunity requires that the
a. Negligence armed men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity, directly
b. Carelessness or indirectly.
c. When the crime was committed out of passion or obfuscation, 3. When the accused, as co-conspirators, acted under the same plan and
or for the same purpose, aid of armed men is not aggravating.
d. When the crime was committed at the spur of the moment

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 4. The mere fact that the third malefactor was not apprehended and What is the basis?
brought to trial does not negate the aggravating circumstances of aid of Greater criminal perversity of the offender as shown by his
armed men. Propensity or
5. Aid of armed men is not aggravating when the accused did not avail of Inclination to commit crimes.
the armed men directly or indirectly.
6. The mere casual presence of armed men, more or less numerous, Nature?
near the place of the occurrence does not constitute an aggravating Generic aggravating circumstance
circumstance when it appears that the defendant did not avail himself in
any way of their aid, and did not knowingly count upon their assistance Who is a ‘recidivist’?
in the commission of the crime. One who,
7. Aid of armed men is absorbed by band. At the time of his trial for one crime,
Shall have been previously convicted
The employment of more than three (3) armed men is an essential By final judgment of another crime
element of and inherent in a band. In appreciating the existence of a Embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
band the employment of more than three armed men is automatically
included, there being only the aggravating circumstance of band to be Is recidivism a criminal offense?
considered NO. It is but one of the aggravating circumstances enumerated by the Revised
Penal Code.
8. Aid of armed men may be taken independently of abuse of superior
strength. What are the requisites? (Reyes, 2012) – (T-P-S-N)
9. Treachery may absorbed aid of armed men and abuse of superior 1. The offender is on trial for an offense
strength. 2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same
Where the very combination of the circumstances of aid of armed men, title of the Code
advantage of superior strength and nighttime, constituted the treachery 4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense
which qualified the crime as murder, the aggravating circumstance of What does ‘at the time of his trial for one crime’ mean?
aid of armed men and advantage of superior strength should not be It is employed in its general sense, including the rendering of judgment.
taken into account. It is meant to include everything done in the course of the trial,
From arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
10. Aid of armed men must be alleged in the information (Sec. 8, Rule 110,
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) The judgment of conviction for his previous crime should already be final
11. It must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. at the time of his trial for the subsequent crime
It is a settled rule that the circumstances qualifying a killing to murder When does a judgment of conviction become final? (A-S-W-A)
must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself. 1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal without any motion
for reconsideration of any motion for new trial being filed by the accused
Ninth circumstance: (Reincidencia) or without any appeal being perfected by him. The period for perfecting
That the accused is an appeal from a judgment of conviction shall be 15 days from
A recidivist. promulgation of judgment.
2. The sentence has been totally or partially served or satisfied.
A recidivist is one who, 3. The accused waived in writing his right to appeal.
At the time of his trial for one crime, 4. The accused has applied for probation.
Shall have been previously convicted
By final judgment of What is the period for perfecting an appeal?
Another crime An appeal must be taken within 15 days from:
Embraced in the o Promulgation of judgment, or
Same title of o From notice of the final order appealed from.
This Code. (Reincidencia)

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
What is the effect of filing a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial 2. It must be alleged in the information (Sec. 8, Rule 110, Criminal
during the period for perfecting an appeal? Procedure)
The period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion 3. The allegation of recidivism necessitates certified copies of sentences.
for reconsideration or a motion for new trial is filed until notice of the order Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such aggravating circumstance
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at which credence if the accused does not object to the presentation of
time the balance of the period begins to run. evidence on the fact of recidivism.
People v. Gaorana: the fact that the accused was an inmate does not
Is there recidivism if the previous judgment of conviction is on appeal? prove that the final judgment had been rendered against him.
NO. It is obvious that the record of a case still pending on appeal is incompetent 4. Recidivism cannot be proved by a certificate of the Chief of Police of
to show that the defendant therein has been convicted by final judgment. the City of Manila showing that the accused has been indicted of an
offense. It cannot be assumed that such indictment ripened to final
The previous crime and the subsequent crime must be embraced in the same conviction, more so, when as in this case objected for the consideration
title of the Revised Penal Code of the same.
This should mean ”felonies” classified under the 15 different Titles of the RPC.
Who is a ‘quasi-recidivist’?
IMPORTANT: classifying rape from being a crime against chastity to a crime A person who
against persons Shall commit a felony
BEFORE RA 8353 took effect (October 22, 1997), rape is a crime against After having been convicted
chastity. By final judgment,
AFTER it took affect (October 22, 1997), rape is a crime against persons. Before beginning to serve such sentence or
While serving such sentence.

Recidivist Quasi-recidivist
Previous crime and present crime Previous crime may be punished by
EXAMPLES: must be embraced under the same the RPC, special law or ordinance.
1. Theft and Estafa (both crimes against property) title of the RPC The second crime must be under the
2. Robberies and robbery with homicide and double serious physical RPC.
injuries (both crimes against property) Generic aggravating circumstance Special aggravating circumstance
3. Slight physical injuries, serious physical injuries, and murder (crimes May be offset by an ordinary Cannot be offset by an ordinary
against persons) mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
4. Slight physical injuries and homicide (crimes against persons)
5. Homicide and murder (crimes against persons)
Tenth circumstance: (reiteracion or habituality)
Is the lapse of time between the final judgment of conviction for the previous That the offender
felony and the time of trial for the subsequent trial material?
Has been previously punished
NO. No matter how many years have intervened between the first and second
For an offense to which
felonies, lapse of time is still immaterial.
The law attaches
An equal or greater penalty or
What if the accused received absolute pardon?
For two or more crimes
Recidivism is still present.
To which it attaches
A pardon for a preceding offense does not obliterate the fact that the accused is
A lighter penalty.
a recidivist upon his conviction of a second offense.

Can recidivism and habitual delinquency co-exist and be considered separately? What is the basis?
YES. Greater criminal perversity of the accused as shown by his propensity to commit
crimes.
NOTES:
1. If three crimes were committed on the same date, there is only Nature?
recidivism, not habitual delinquency. They should not be considered as Generic aggravating circumstance
three convictions but only as one, and as mere aggravating
circumstance of recidivism
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
What are the three situations contemplated in this paragraph? 3. Should be alleged in the information in order to be appreciated
1. At the time of his trial for a crime, 4. It necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence
The accused has been convicting an accused
Previously punished for an offense
To which the law attaches NO REITERACTION:
An equal penalty 1. If the accused were still serving their respective sentences at the time of
the commission of the crime
2. At the time of his trial for a crime, 2. If there records do not disclose that the accused has been previously
The accused has been punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
Previously punished for an offense penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
To which the law attaches 3. If the penalty for the previous conviction is lower than the present
A greater penalty conviction

3. At the time of his trial for a crime, Eleventh circumstance: (in consideration of a price, reward, or promise)
The accused has been That the crime be committed
Previously punished for In consideration of a
Two or more crimes Price,
To which the law attaches Reward, or
A lighter penalty Promise
What are the requisites? (Reyes, 2012) – (T-S-C)
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense Basis?
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law Greater moral depravity on the part of the offeror and acceptor
attaches an equal or greater penalty,
Or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that Nature?
for the new offense; and Qualifying aggravating circumstance
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
Price, reward, or promise involves the principal by inducement and principal by
Reiteracion vs. Recidivisim direct participation
Reiteracion Recidivism There are always two persons criminally liable:
Not necessary that the felonies be Previous and subsequent convictions 1. The person offering the price, reward or promise – principal by
embraced in the same title of the must be for felonies embraced in the inducement
RPC same title of the RPC 2. The person accepting the same and executing the act – principal by
Final conviction for the crime is not It is enough that there is a final direct participation
enough. judgment of conviction for a previous
The accused must have served the felony. Against whom is price, reward, or promise considered an aggravating
sentence. Service of sentence is not necessary. circumstance?
There must be two or more previous One previous final judgment of Equally against offeror and acceptor.
conviction and punishments, provided conviction is sufficient provided that
that these previous convictions are the previous and subsequent What is the essential element in order the price, reward, or promise may be
for crimes to which the law attaches a convictions are for felonies embraced considered aggravating?
lighter penalty in the same title of the RPC It must be the sole motivating factor in the commission of the crime,
Without which the crime would not have been committed.
NOTES:
NOTES:
1. Actual punishment or service of sentence is essential in reiteracion
1. It is only a generic aggravating circumstance if it concurs with treachery
2. Reiteracion requires that if there is only one prior offense, then that
(qualifying aggravating)
offense must be punishable by an equal or greater penalty than the one
2. Price need not be in money only
for which the accused has been convicted. Likewise, the prosecution
has to prove that the offender has been punished for the previous
offense.

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
Twelfth circumstance: What is evident premediation?
That the crime be committed  Primarily a state of mind of the accused, the presence or absence of
By means of which can only be determined by the accused’s external or overt acts
Inundation,  The execution of the act was preceded by cool though and reflection
Fire, upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of
Poison, time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Explosion,  It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or
Stranding of a vessel or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.
Intentional damage thereto,  It must be based on external acts which must be notorious, manifest,
Derailment of a locomotive, or (not merely suspecting) indicating deliberate planning.
By the use of  Essence: that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought
Any other artifice and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during
Involving great waste and ruin. a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment

What are the requisites? (T-A-S)

What is the basis?
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused as shown by the means
2. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination
with which he committed the crime.
3. A sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his
Nature?
will
Qualifying.
Evident premeditation contemplates cold and deep meditation and tenacious
Paragraph 7 vs. Paragraph 12
persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act
Paragraph 7 Paragraph 12
It is satisfactorily established if it is proved that the accused had deliberately
On occasion of a calamity or Refers to the means employed in
planned to commit the crime and had persistently and continuously followed it
misfortune when the crime was the commission of the crime
notwithstanding that he had ample and sufficient time to allow his conscience to
committed overcome the determination of his will, if he had desired it, after meditation and
reflection.
Fire, poison, explosion or derailment of a locomotive is not aggravating when it is
already an essential part of the felony (A-D-C) CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. Arson 1. Where the accused threatened to murder the victim and three days
2. Crimes involving destruction afterwards carried out the treat, for he had three days’ time to meditate
3. Damages and obstruction to means of communication upon the crime which he intended to commit and was not prompted by
the impulse of the moment.
People v. Malngan: When fire is used with the intent to kill a particular person 2. When the accused was approached and hired by another to kill the
who may be in a house and that objective is attained by burning the building or murder victim and clung to his determination to kill the victim even after
edifice, the crime is murder only. an unsuccessful first attempt.
3. Such planned rendezvous with specific outsiders could certainly not
Thirteenth circumstance: have been arranged for and taken place if there have been no contacts
That the act be committed and planning which of course establish evident premeditation and by
With evident premeditation their very nature required a considerable lapse of time for sufficient
reflection on the part of the accused
What is the basis?
Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused as shown by his tenacious NOTES:
persistence to commit the crime 1. Premeditation must not be merely suspected or surmised. The criminal
intent must be evidenced by notorious overt acts evincing determination
Nature? to commit the crime.
Qualifying 2. There must be an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and
deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what they had

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 planned to do, an interval long enough for the conscience and better
judgment to overcome the evil desire and scheme.
3. Where there was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation, it
cannot be said to exist, since it is not enough that premeditation be
suspected or surmised.
4. It is not enough that there be a threat on the life of the victim; it must be
proved that the accused not only had decided to commit the crime but
also that the decision was the result of meditation, calculation and
reflection.
5. An expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to
commit a crime.
6. Proof of the alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of
evident premeditation. There must be a demonstration of outward acts
of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest.
7. The time when the accused resolved to commit the crime is essential
because the lapse of time for the purpose of the third requisite is
computed from such date and time
8. Animosities, grudges or hostile posturing, do not per se warrant a
finding of evident premeditation
9. The fact that the accused made threats to kill the victim does not
necessarily prove evident premeditation without a showing that the
accused performed acts manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination. The accused’s threats, unsupported by evidence which
would disclose his true criminal state of mind, will only be construed as
casual remarks naturally emanating from a feeling of rancor and not a
resolution of the character involved in evident premeditation.
10. Evident premeditation can exist independently of the aggravating
circumstance of price, reward, or promise.
Even though in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or
promise, premeditation is sometimes present, the latter not being
inherent in the former, and there being no incompatibility between the
two, premeditation cannot necessarily be considered as included merely
because an offer of money, reward, or promise was made.
11. Evident premeditation is NOT inherent in robbery with homicide.
People v. Manansala: In such an offense, evident premeditation must
relate to the killing and not to the robbery.
Justice Ramon C. Aquino: in the case of implied conspiracy, evident
premeditation may NOT be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to
how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time
elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be determined if the
accused had sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment
dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
NO EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
1. If the evidence is tenuous in character or if it rests on mere conjecture
2. If the accused did not know of the intended killing until he was ordered
by his brother to go with him to the house of the deceased
3. If the accused did not know that the victim would run and the latter was
shot as he was running away
4. If the deceased was not the intended victim
5. If there is no proof of the time when the intent to commit the crime was
engendered in the mind of the accused
6. If the crime was committed in an accidental encounter
People v. Mozar: It occurred while the latter was merely searching for
the missing fish net.
7. If the crime was committed at the spur of the moment
People v. Torejas: this circumstance exists only if it could be shown
beyond reasonable doubt that there intervened a period of time long
enough in a judicial sense to afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection thus enabling the conscience of the accused to overcome the
resolution of his will if he would only pay heed to its warning.
People v. Mabansag: It could be that the plan was conceived at the
spur of the moment because there was no previous incident between
the protagonists.
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan: When the members of the Integrated
National Police had the urge to kill as instantaneously as they perceived
their suspects to be attempting flight and evading arrest
8. When the fatal assault followed closely a previous incident between the
accused and the victim
WHERE EVIDENT PREMEDITATION MAY EXIST
1. When there is a general plan to kill not only the intended victim but also
anyone who would help put up a violent resistance.
People vs. Ubina: this determination to kill all who stood in their way is
evident form the answer of accused to the deceased mayor’s call for
help when the accused said that even if the deceased would call all his
policemen he is not afraid of them.
2. Even if at the time the offender determined to commit the crime, a victim
had not been identified.
US v. Manalinde: The fact that the arrangement between the instigator
and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first
encounter, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of
premeditation.
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 The accused stated his intent to stab someone that night, without Fourteenth circumstance:
specifying any particular individual person or persons That
Craft,
3. The Manalinde ruling (#2) does not apply when there is no evidence Fraud, or
pointing to the fact that the accused planned to kill any person who may Disguise
cross his path. His act of bringing with him a knife in going to the plaza Be employed
is not an indication that he did plan to kill anybody.

What is ‘sufficient time’? What is the basis?

 It is not simply a matter of the precise number of hours, but of the
reasonable opportunity, under the situation and circumstances, to
ponder and reflect upon the consequences.
 It must be evident that the defendant has deliberately planned to commit
the crime, and had persistently and continuously followed it
notwithstanding that he had ample time to allow is conscience to
overcome his evil desire, if he had desired, after meditation and
reflection, to harken to its warnings.
 It is a period sufficient in the judicial sense to give the accused full
opportunity for meditation and reflection, and sufficient to allow
the conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution of his will.
 It varies on the circumstances.
When is time considered insufficient?
1. The lapse of 2 minutes or so from the time the accused checked on the
whereabouts of the victim to the time such deceased was attacked is
not sufficient to afford them time to reflect on the consequences of their
actions
2. The lapse of 10 minutes from the time the accused escaped from the
municipal jail up to the time he shot PC Constable Canela near the
cemetery
3. The lapse of 15 minutes
4. The lapse of 30 minutes between the time after he was escorted to his
house and the time he went out of his house to attack the victim.
5. If the time lapse between the determination to commit a crime and the
execution thereof is too short, then the time lapse is insufficient for full
meditation on the consequences of the time
6. People v. Tan: Only about two hours had intervened between the
accused’s rage and the killing so that the defendant had no ample
opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning
and consequences of what he said he would do
When is time considered sufficient?
1. Two and one-half to four hours was considered sufficient
2. The period of four hours that lapse from the moment the assailant was
enraged until he attacked the victim was considered sufficient to qualify
the killing with the circumstance of evident premeditation
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused as shown by the manner in
which he committed the crime
Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance
What does it denote?
Intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by an accused (A-L-C)
o To aid in the execution of his criminal design or
o To lure the victim into a trap and
o To conceal the identity of the accused
CRAFT
What is craft?
o Cunning or trickery
o Chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his
criminal design
o Employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. When the accused pretended that they had pacific intentions in desiring
to enter the same
2. When the accused pretended to be “rancheros” or prisoners in charge
of bringing food to the cells to gain entry into Brigade 3B and kill the
deceased
3. When the accused resorted to craft in persuading the deceased to be in
the hotel, by pretending that her personal intervention was necessary in
connection with a bank deposit he had allegedly made for the benefit of
the deceased’s children.
4. The victims were lured into going to a bridge which at the time was an
isolated spot because it was the end of the road and no one would or
could pass there because of the blasted condition of the southern end
thereof
5. When the accused induced the constabulary soldiers to believe that if
he ordered his soldiers to put down their arms, they would be friends
with him and his soldiers, and because while said soldiers were thus
unprepared to defend themselves, the accused unexpectedly attacked
the former giving them no time to use their arms
6. When the accused pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim’s
store and on his pretext gained entry into the latter’s store and later, into
another part of his dwelling.
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 7. When the accused pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and NOTES:
through this artifice, entered the house of the victim to whom they 1. Disguise is still aggravating although the mask subsequently fell down
thereupon robbed and killed thus paving the way for the identification of the accused
8. Posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes and posting as thirsty, 2. Wearing the greater portion of the Constabulary uniform in which the
asking for a drink of water, then committed individual crimes of robbery accused was clad at the time of the mutiny and cloths wrapped about
with rape and rape. their heads, do not constitute disguise where there was no effort at
concealment
There is no craft if the accused’s criminal design could have been carried out 3. Treachery absorbs the circumstances of craft, fraud, and disguise
even without the chicanery
o People vs. Zea: When Realino pretended to be sick in order that Fifteenth circumstance:
Severino could secure Mr. Go’s permission to drive the truck, thereby That advantage be taken
enabling Realino, Ricardo and Edilberto to board the vehicle when it Of superior strength, or
passed by Realino’s house. One way or the other, the accused’s Means be employed
criminal design could have been carried out without Realino’s having To weaken the defense
feigned illness on the day in question.
o People v. Aspili: the accused did not employ craft, since they had
already boarded the vessel when they pretended to buy liquor in What are the two circumstances? (S-W)
exchange for the dried fish and chicken they were carrying. 1. Advantage of superior strength
o People vs. Quinanola: the fact that one of the accused has pretended 2. Means be employed to weaken the defense
to be a member of the NPA does not necessarily imply the use of craft,
fraud or disguise, in the commission of the two counts of rape ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
What is the basis?
FRAUD Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused who deliberately uses his
superior strength in order to be assured of the commission of the crime
What is ‘fraud’?
Constitutes deceit and is manifested by Nature?
Insidious words and machinations Qualifying.

CASE LAW EXAMPLES What is ‘taking advantage of superior strength’?

1. The accused lured the minor to go with him and look for her sister who
was allegedly waiting for the offended girl somewhere at a certain street
2. The accused took advantage of the absence of the offended party’s
mother and took said offended party to another house where she was
raped
3. To convince the rape victim that the change of route during the trip was
a necessity, the accused told the victim that they had to drop the PC
soldier-passenger somewhere near the river bank.
There is no craft or fraud if there is nothing deceitful in the evidence presented
People v. Legaspi: “Ty, we will go out for a few minutes.” – nothing deceitful
with the way the accused asked him to go out with him.
DISGUISE
Precise meaning: it denotes the use of excessive force out of proportion to the
means available to the person attacked to defend himself
When is abuse of super strength present?
 Whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage by him in the
commission of the crime
 It is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition of the parties and
the arms or objects employed but the incidents in the total development of
the case as well
 There must be a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength

What is ‘disguise’? DOCTRINES

When one uses some device to prevent recognition. 1. Abuse of superior strength depends on several factors such as but not
limited to:
CASE LAW EXAMPLE: Where a malefactor wore a mask to conceal his identity o Age
during the commission of the crime o Sex
o Size
o Built
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 o Weapon 15. When the attack is NOT made with treachery, the number of assailants
o Number and the simultaneousness of the attack upon a defenseless person may
o Strength of the parties constitute abuse of superior force
o Simultaneousness of the attack
2. Abuse of superior strength is present when a pregnant woman was shot People vs. Agapinay: The fact that Delfin and Fortunato held Virgilio
in cold blood while lying down in the hammock while Romeo stabbed him, does not demonstrate treachery but abuse of
3. It is present when the offender uses a weapon which is out of proportion authority.
to the defense available to the offended party
4. This is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, When is abuse of superior strength not present?
or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the 1. If the health, strength, agility, and superiority actually lies not with the
aggressor, but also when the offender uses a weapon which is out of accused but with the victim
proportion to the defense available to the offended party 2. If the accused did not conspire to kill the victim.
5. This will not be appreciated if there is no notorious inequality in strength People v. Bautista: the fatal shot was fired by only one of the two
between the accused and the victim accused. The fact that they did not conspire to kill the homicide victim
6. That the victim was slimmer/thinner while the accused was bulkier and implies that they did not jointly exploit their superior strength.
stronger is not enough proof that the latter enjoyed superior strength 3. If there is no marked difference in the built of the victim and the accused
Remember: it must be established that not only did he enjoy superior 4. If the accused attacked the murder victim alternately, one after the other
strength over the victim, but that he took advantage thereof in the (
commission of the crime )
7. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute abuse of superior 5. Parricide – it is generally accepted that the husband is physically
strength; there must exist proof of deliberate intent to take advantage of stronger than the wife
the same
What is primordial is that the assailants deliberately took advantage of Remember: Abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape
their combined strength in order to consummate the crime. It is Like the crime of parricide by a husband on his wife.
necessary to show that the malefactors cooperated in such a way as to The use of the knife already qualified the rape; and this absorbed the aggravating
secure advantage from their superiority in strength. circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
8. Superior strength is not appreciated by the mere fact of superiority in
the number of malefactors, but rather by the deliberate employment of Abuse of superior strength may still be aggravating in the following crimes,
excessive force which is out of proportion to the means of defense although they are committed with force or violence (F-A-G)
available to the person attacked. 1. Grave coercion
9. Where the meeting between the victim and his assailants was purely 2. Forcible abduction with rape
unexpected and accidental hardly indicate deliberate use of numerical 3. Abduction through violence with rape
superiority or abuse of superior strength
10. The mere holding of the victim’s shoulder in the manner demonstrated Band vs. Abuse of Superior Strength
by the witness could not have so immobilized the deceased as to render
him completely helpless to put up any resistance. Band Abuse of Superior Strength
11. The number of assailants, if armed, may be considered as a qualifying Committed by more than three armed Committed by the culprits taking
circumstance of abuse of superior strength malefactors regardless of the advantage of their collective strength
12. When four armed assailants gang up on one unarmed victim, it can only comparative strength of the victim/s to overpower their relatively weaker
be said that excessive force was purposely sought and employed victim/s
13. It is essentially inconsistent with the finding that only one of the three Indispensable components: What is taken into account is not the
accused is guilty in the character of principal, while the other two (a) At least four malefactors number of aggressors nor the fact
participated in the character of accomplices only. It must appear that the (b) All of them are armed that they are armed BUT their relative
accused cooperated together in some way designed to weaken the physical might vis-à-vis the offended
defense; and if the two accomplices really participated in the sense party
necessary to enable the court to estimate against them this
circumstance, this would make them guilty in the character of principals. People vs. Apduhan: The withdrawal by the prosecution of the circumstance of
14. Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength so that even if the same abuse of superiority on the ground that since the offense was committed by a
is present, there is no need to appreciate it as an independent generic band, the element of cuadrilla necessarily absorbs the circumstance of abuse of
aggravating circumstance

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
superior strength was ill-advised since the two circumstances are separate and In the execution thereof
distinct legal concepts. Which tend directly and specially
To insure its execution,
MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE Without risk to the offender
Arising from the defense which the victim might make.
What is the basis?
Greater criminal depravity on the part of the accused who shows his persistent What is the essence of treachery?
determination to commit the crime by waking the victim’s defenses The attack is deliberate AND without warning,
Done in a swift and unexpected way,
Nature? Affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim
Qualifying No chance to resist or escape.

CASE LAW EXAMPLES What is decisive is that

1. When one suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and The attack was executed
while in this situation he wounds or kills him In such a manner as to
2. When the victim was first intoxicated before he was murdered Make it impossible for the victim
3. All the members of the household were hogtied by electric cords and To retaliate.
gagged with pieces of clothes
Treachery is never presumed
NOTES: Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility must in no case rest upon
1. Treachery absorbs “means employed to weaken the defense” mere presumptions, no matter how reasonable or probable, but must be based
2. It must be specifically alleged in the information on facts of unquestioned existence, and that it is settled that the circumstances
which qualify the killing to murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime
Sixteenth circumstance: (alevosia) itself.
That the act be committed with
Treachery. What are the tests to determine whether treachery was present? (S-O-E)
1. Was the attack sudden and unexpected?
There is treachery when 2. Was the accused given an opportunity to defend himself, to retaliate, to
The offender commits any of repel the attack or to escape?
The crimes against person, 3. Was the mode of attack consciously adapted by the accused to ensure
Employing means, the commission of the crime without risk to himself?
Methods, or
Forms in the execution thereof which
Tend directly and specially to Treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and
Insure its execution unexpected, IF:
Without risk to himself 1. The meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the
Arising from the defense attack was done impulsively
Which the offended party might take 2. The decision was made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless
position was accidental
3. The attack appeared to have been impulsively done, a spur of the
What is the basis? moment act in the heat of anger or extreme annoyance. The accused,
Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused as shown by the manner who at that time was languishing in his alcoholic state, acted brashly
in which the crime was committed and impetuously
4. The accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such
Nature? manner as to insure the commission of the killing or to make it
Both qualifying and specific aggravating circumstance impossible or difficult for the person attacked to retaliate or defend
Qualifying: elevates the killing of a person from homicide to murder himself
Specific: applies only to crimes against persons 5. The encounter between the accused and the victim was a chance
What is treachery? encounter and the accused’s gun was in the glove compartment of his
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, car even before he left his house
Employing means, methods or forms
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 6. The attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated discussion
7. The victim was already aware of the accused’s hostile attitude towards
him even before the attack, hence, he was already forewarned of the
impending danger to his life
NOTES:
1. There is no treachery when the victim had the opportunity to counter or
evade the attack or to escape
2. The fact that the victim may have been forewarned of his peril does not
exclude treachery. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. The
victim was then totally unprepared to even guess that the accused
would pepper him with bullets.
3. When the attack is continuous and uninterrupted, treachery, to be
considered aggravating, must be present at the inception of the attack
4. When an altercation which ends in a homicide is begun without alevosia
on the part of the slayer, and the criminal design is prosecuted to its
consummation without any break in the continuity of the aggression and
without the intervention of any factor which materially changes the
conditions of the aggression, the offense constitutes homicide, although
the fatal blow was characterized by alevosia.
5. There is treachery in a frontal attack when the same is sudden and
unexpected and the victim was not given a chance to defend himself,
repel the attack, retaliate or evade the attack
People vs. Agacer: It no longer matters that the assault was frontal
since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to
repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his person.
People vs. Dones: Even after the husband fell, the accused continued
to pepper him with bullets, thus ensuring that the murder victim would
not survive or retaliate.
6. Treachery is present, if the accused held fast the deceased from behind
and the other accused assaulted him.
7. No treachery, if the victim could easily avoid the attack by fleeing from
the accused
8. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted
9. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed may co-
exist with treachery
10. No treachery if the mode of attack was not consciously adapted
11. The mode of attack must not have sprung from an unseen occurrence
but must be thought of by the accused
12. The fact that the accused fired his gun from behind the victim does not
by itself amount to treachery where there is no evidence on record that
the accused deliberately positioned himself behind the victim to gain
advantage over him when he fired the shot.
13. When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the
accused.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
14. 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
15. Attacking a child of tender years constitutes treachery even if the
manner of assault is not shown. The weakness of the victim due to his
tender years results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
16. Attacking the sleeping victim constitutes treachery
17. Attacking a victim who just woke up constitutes treachery
18. No treachery if the accused had just been aroused from his sleep when
he attacked the victim. This shows that he did not plan nor make any
preparation to hurt the latter in such manner as to insure the
commission of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the victim
to defend himself or retaliate.
19. Mere suddenness of an attack is not enough to constitute treachery
when the mode adapted does not positively tend to prove that the
assailant thereby knowingly intended to insure the accomplishment of
his criminal purpose without risk to himself arising from the defense.
20. Firing at the victim who, with hands upraised, was pleading that his lead
be spared, constitutes treachery.
21. Although the victim is different from the one intended, treachery may still
be considered aggravating if there is a plan to harm anyone who would
resist or hinder the plan to kill the intended victim
22. The plan to kill the victim without risk to the accused may be inferred
from the overt acts that the latter committed such as:
a. The designation of the respective roles that the two men would
play in committing the crime; and
b. The act of carrying a weapon to be used against the victim
23. There is treachery when the victim’s hands were tied before he was
stabbed. These facts portray well that the tied hands of the victim
rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to
commit the crime without risk at all to their person.
24. There is no treachery if it is not shown how the aggression commenced
and how the acts causing injury/death began and developed, and this
circumstance is not supported by proof of a deliberate and conscious
adoption of the mode of attack.
25. No treachery if the prosecution only proved the events after the attack
happened, but not the manner the attack commenced or how the act
which resulted in the victim’s death unfolded
26. There must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression
was made, how it began and how it developed. Any doubt as to the
existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.
27. No treachery if the second stabbing was done during the struggle.
28. No treachery if the fatal wound was inflicted as part and a continuation
of a single aggression.
29. When the aggression is interrupted and can be divided into two or more
stages, it is enough that treachery was present at the time the fatal blow
was inflicted.
30. A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stags to make it
appear that treachery was involved.
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
Treachery may absorb other aggravating circumstances: (PANAB-CE) 6. What is required is that the crime be committed in a manner that tends
1. Taking advantage of public position to make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to his
2. Abuse of superior strength moral suffering.
3. Nighttime 7. From the fact that the crime was committed in a public place and in the
4. Aid of armed men presence of many persons
5. Band 8. If the intention of the accused was shown to be the commission of
6. Craft, fraud and disguise sexual abuse on the victim as an act of revenge for his similar
7. Employing means to weaken the defense experience as a child
9. If it was not proven and was brought about only during cross-
Seventeenth circumstance: (ignominy) examination
That means be employed or 10. When the prosecution did not pursue this matter by conducting re-
Circumstances brought about examination. This lapse on the part of the prosecution can only favor the
Which add ignominy to accused.
The natural effects of the act 11. If the accused committed the act in a desire to avenge his brother. It is
quite apparent that all they were interested in was to assure that there
be retribution for what was done to their brother.
What is the basis? 12. If no means were employed nor did any circumstances surround the act
Greater moral depravity on the part of the accused as shown by the manner in tending to make the effects of the crime more humiliating.
which he committed the crime The fact that the deceased was murdered in the presence of his wife
does not constitute the circumstance of ignominy which consists in
Nature? adding disgrace and ignominy to the material injury caused by the
Qualifying crime.
13. When it is not alleged in the information
What is ignominy?
A circumstance pertaining to the moral order, IGNOMINY IN CRIMES INVOLVING RAPE
Which adds disgrace and 1. Pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a contact with a
Obloquy to the lighted cigarette
Material injury caused by the crime. 2. Doggy style – the studies of many experts in the manner have shown
that this position is not novel. This sexual act is performed by
Ignominy in grave coercion consenting partners and not otherwise. It adds ignominy when
It is present in a case of grave coercion, considering that the removal of the old employed in rape cases.
woman’s drawers could have no other purpose but to put her to shame, and have 3. Victim was raped in the presence of her alleged husband who was
no direct bearing on the result sought by the accused. hogtied and was beside her on the floor
4. The accused used the flashlight and examined the genital of the victim
NO IGNOMINY IN THE FOLLOWING CASES before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence
1. From the mere fact that the accused fired at the prostate body of the of the victim’s old father.
victim. The mere fact that the accused fired one more shot at the 5. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the
prostrate body of one murder victim and four more shots at the prostrate presence of her betrothed, or her husband, or was made to exhibit to
body of the other is not sufficient to show the existence of said the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped her
aggravating circumstance. 6. When the accused plastered mud on the rape victim’s private part
2. If nothing in the record shows that before the deceased died, he/she 7. The accused tied a banana fiber around his penis and inserted it again
was subjected to such indignities as would cause shame or moral into her vagina. Thereafter, he pulled out his organ and forced the victim
suffering to suck it.
3. It is not present if there is no evidence on record to show that means 8. When the accused successively raped Noemi in one place and her
were employed or circumstances around the act tending to make the mother Eriberta in another.
effects of the crime more humiliating
4. The mere fact that the accused burned the body of the deceased is not IGNOMINY IN TREASON
sufficient to show that the means were employed which added ignominy o The accused chose to add ignominy to his treasonous act in arresting
to the natural effects of the act. and maltreating in a guerilla suspect by stripping his wife of her clothes
5. If the victim was already dead when the ignominious act was committed and then abusing her together with other Filipino girls.

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 o Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties 4. Robbery in an inhabited place, public building or place dedicated to
are condemned and the perpetration of these will be regarded as religious worship
aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately augmenting 5. Robbery with homicide
unnecessary wrongs to the main criminal objective 6. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

Eighteenth circumstance: Nineteenth circumstance:

That the crime be committed after That as a means
An unlawful entry. To the commission of a crime
A wall,
There is an unlawful entry Roof,
When an entrance is effected Floor,
By a way Door, or
Not intended Window
For the purpose Be broken

What is the basis? What is the basis?

Greater criminal perversity displayed by the accused who Greater criminal perversity on the part of the accused who has to break a wall,
Defies protective covers roof, floor, door or window as a means to commit the crime
Set up by a man
For his personal safety and privacy Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance
Nature?
Generic aggravating circumstance To be considered aggravating, breaking a wall, roof, floor, door, or window must
be used as a means to commit the crime
What is ‘unlawful entry’? o When the defendant entered by forcing open the door by means of
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. some instrument, it is not considered as aggravating. This was only
simple theft.
WHERE UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS PRESENT o Breaking of the shutters and the framing of the door to ensure the
1. Present in a prosecution for murder since the accused admittedly elements of surprise does not aggravate the commission of the crime.
destroyed the glass blades or jalousies of a window in gaining entry into
the house Breaking a wall, roof, floor, door or
Unlawful Entry
2. The defendant took advantage of the darkness of the night and window
committed the crime in the home of the offended party, passing through Exists only when entrance into a
a window which was not intended for entrance building is made by a way not for the
3. A baluster in the ceiling at the rear part of the house had been forcibly purpose of entry
removed and that there was a ladder propped nearby. There was thus
entry to the complainant’s house through an opening which was not Inherent in the following crimes
intended for that purpose. 1. Robbery in an uninhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to
4. The accused and his companion entered the victim’s residence through religious worship
the second-floor window, a way not intended for ingress 2. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

NOTES:
Twentieth circumstance:
1. Unlawful entry must be used as means of entrance and not for escape
That the crime be committed
2. Unlawful entry absorbs breaking down a wall
With the aid of
3. Must be alleged in the information
Persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
By means of
Inherent in the following felonies:
Motor vehicles,
1. Violation of domicile
Airships, or
2. Evasion of service of sentence (“jail breaking”)
Other similar means
3. Trespass to dwelling
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 that on his way to the camp, he happened to see the second murder
What is the basis? victim sitting by the window of his house.
Greater criminal perversity on the part of the offender as shown by the aid of
persons under 15 years of age, the use of motor vehicles, airships and similar 2. When it was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate
means to facilitate the commission of the crime. the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender
easier and his apprehension difficult
Nature? 3. If not alleged in the information
Generic aggravating circumstances
EXCEPT use of motor vehicles which is a qualifying aggravating circumstance Twenty-first circumstance:
That the wrong done
AID OF MINORS In the commission of the crime
Be deliberately augmented
After divesting a student of his cellphone and wristwatch at the point of a knife, A By causing other wrong
hand the same to a 12-year-old boy who immediately fled and lost himself in the Not necessary
crowd. For its commission
MOTOR VEHICLE
What is the basis?
The accused must use the motor vehicle in: (G-C-F) Greater criminal perversity on the part of the offender as shown by causing
o Going to the place of the crime another wrong not necessary for its commission.
o Carrying away the effects thereof and
o Facilitating their escape Nature?
Qualifying aggravating circumstance
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. When the accused deliberately availed themselves of a tricycle to When is there cruelty?
facilitate the commission of the offense, giving them cover in the course There is cruelty when
thereof The culprit enjoys and delight
2. After Pedro had bumped the deceased with the jeep he was driving, the In making his victim suffer
accused father jumped from the jeep and with a blunt instrument Slowly and gradually,
stabbed his victim twice on the neck. The defendant used a jeep and it Causing him unnecessary physical pain in
facilitated the commission of the crime. The consummation of the
3. The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said Criminal act.
vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused.
4. The accused and his companions made good their escape by speeding What is the test of cruelty (ensanamiento) to be considered as an aggravating
away in the jeep in order to avoid discovery of their identities circumstance?
5. The accused brought the complaining witness to Tourist Spot in a Whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by:
taxicab. The use of the motor vehicle facilitated the taking of the victim o Causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or
and her subsequent rape. o Inhumanely increased the victim’s suffering or
6. The accused abducted the complainant by pushing her into a cab and o Outraged or
bringing her to the place where he later raped her o Scoffed at his person or corpse
It must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making the victim
Use of a motor vehicle is NOT aggravating in: suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in
1. When there is no showing that the motor vehicle was purposely used to the consummation of the criminal act.
facilitate the commission of the crime or where it is not shown that
without it the offense charged could not have been committed CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. Pouring boiling hot liquid to the victim at various times prior to the
People vs. Mill: in the case of the two murders at bar, the primary murder
purpose of the accused in riding on a motorized tricycle was to return to 2. Victim was stoned, stabbed and beheaded. He was inflicted with
their camp after shooting one murder victim and it was just incidental numerous wounds before he was murdered.
3. Accused soldier boxed the victim, belting him, threatening him by firing
his pistol in the air.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 4. The victim was already weak and dying when the accused inserted the 2. The corpse of the deceased was outraged when it was dismembered
cassava trunk inside her private organ. with the cutting off the head and limbs and opening up of the body to
5. The accused augmented the victim’s sufferings by strangulating him remove the intestines, lungs and liver. The killer scoffed at the dead
with a rope and setting him on fire after having struck him twice on the when the intestines were removed and hung around the victim’s neck as
head a necklace and the lungs and liver were described as pulutan.
6. There is no incompatibility between treason and decent, human 3. Dumping the body into a ravine to hide the effects of his criminal act
treatment of prisoners 4. When the accused decapitated the victim and showed the severed head
7. The accused cut of the ear of the deceased to the neighborhood, shouting it was the deceased’s head.

NOTES:
1. Number of wounds suffered by the victim is not the test to determine
cruelty
2. Rape may be aggravating in murder as a form of cruelty
3. Cruelty cannot be presumed
NO CRUELTY
1. If the prosecution did not show that the accused enjoyed inflicting
injuries upon the victim
2. If the criminal acts were caused not by any sadistic bend but by the
drugs that diminished the accused’s mental capacity
3. If the intention was not to make the victim suffer but to conceal the
corpus delicti
4. If the criminal acts were committed solely to ensure death and to
conceal the corpus delicti
5. If the acts were committed after the victim died
6. If the acts were committed after the victim died and the operation was
conceived solely for the purpose of facilitating the sinking of the
cadavers and preventing their discovery
7. If the reason why the accused kicked the deceased or placed his right
foot on the body of the deceased was to verify whether the latter was
still alive, and not for the purpose of deliberately and inhumanely
increasing the victim’s sufferings
8. If the wrongful act is directed against an animal owned by the family of
the deceased because these acts do not augment the suffering of the
victim
Ignominy Cruelty
Moral suffering Physical suffering
What is ‘outrage’?
To subject to gross insult.
What is ‘scoff’?
To show contempt by derisive acts or language.
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. Accused mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of the victim by
having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead
NOTES:
1. In scoffing at the victim, the accused must be already dead after the
acts were committed
2. It must be alleged in the information
3. Scoffing at the corpse of the victim may be deducible from the
information
4. There is no scoffing if there is no proof that the purpose of the accused
was to insult the victim or to show contempt for the dead
5. There is no scoffing if the fact relied upon is based merely on
speculation
6. It is a well-settled rule that an aggravating circumstance must be proved
as fully as the crime itself and any doubt as to its existence must be
resolved in favor of the accused
Scoffing Ignominy
Throwing the victim’s cadaver into the
river
Aggravating circumstances not found in Art. 14, but are peculiar to certain
crimes:
1. Violation of domicile: papers of effects not constituting evidence of a
crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the
offender
2. Interruption of religious worship: crime committed with violence or
threats
3. Direct assault: when the assault is committed with a weapon or when
the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays
hands upon a person in authority
4. Less serious physical injuries: if inflicted upon the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of ranks, or
persons in authority
5. Slavery: if the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the
offended party to some immoral traffic
6. Qualified trespass to dwelling: if the offense be committed by means
of violence or intimidation
7. Grave threats: if the threat be made in writing or through a middleman
8. Grave coercion: if the coercion be committed for the purpose of
compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent him from
so doing

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 9. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws: if either of the 3. Degree of instruction or education of the offender
contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of
violence, intimidation or fraud RELATIONSHIP

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
when the offended party is the: (S-A-D-L-A)
Art. 15. Their concept. – 1. Spouse
Alternative circumstances are 2. Ascendant
Those which must be taken 3. Descendant
Into consideration as 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
Aggravating or mitigating 5. Relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender
According to the
Nature and effects of the NOTES:
Crime and the other conditions o The RPC is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when it is
Attending its commission. aggravating.
They are the o It will depend upon the nature and effects of the crime and other
Relationship, conditions attending its commission.
Intoxication, and o Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property
The degree of instruction and o Exempting in theft, swindling, and malicious mischief
Education of the offender.
CASE LAW DOCTRINES
The alternative circumstance of 1. In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating whether
Relationship shall be taken into consideration the offender is a higher or a lower degree relative of the offended party
When the offended party is the 2. Relationship is always aggravating in rape
Spouse, 3. Relationship is aggravating in rape if the accused is the brother-in-law of
Ascendant, the victim
Descendant, 4. Relationship is NOT aggravating if the accused is the stepbrother of the
Legitimate, stepsister victim
Natural, or 5. Uncle inflicts physical injuries on his niece  NEITHER aggravating nor
Adopted brother or sister, or mitigating
Relative by affinity in the 6. Aggravating in murder:
Same degrees of the offender. a. Victim is the father-in-law of the accused
b. Offenders are the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim
The intoxication of the offender c. Offender is the stepson of the victim
Shall be taken into consideration 7. The word “step” in conjunction with a degree of kinship presupposes a
As a mitigating circumstance when valid marriage
The offender has committed a felony 8. The alternative circumstance of relationship is limited only to those
In a state of intoxication, mentioned in the law
If the same is not habitual or 9. Relationship is inherent in parricide: (K-D-F)
Subsequent to the plan to a. A person is killed
Commit said felony; b. The deceased is killed by the accused
But when the intoxication is c. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
Habitual or intentional, legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or
It shall be considered as descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused
An aggravating circumstance. The key element is the relationship of the offender with the victim.
10. Relationship must be alleged in the information.
RA 7659: the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must
What are the alternative circumstances? (R-I-D) be specifically alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial
1. Relationship with equal certainty as the crime itself to warrant the imposition of the
2. Intoxication death penalty.

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 2. Not habitual but accidental
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius 3. Crime of robbery with homicide appears to have been committed on
(Courts must not bring cases within the provision of a law which are not impulse because of inebriation. The malefactors had been drinking for 2
embraced by it to the end that no person who is clearly not within the terms of the hours prior to the incident. It is because of this that the accused is
statute can be brought within them. entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication which does not
appear to be habitual
INTOXICATION 4. Having been accidental and prior to any criminal resolve, it was more
out of impulse or delusion born of alcohol that the offender committed
Reason? the crime
o Because it impairs the exercise of one’s will-power 5. In the absence of proof to the contrary, intoxication is presumed to be
o When a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of will unintentional or not habitual
power is impaired and his resistance to evil thoughts is lessened
What are the requirements of intoxication to be proven mitigating? (B-D-N-S)
When is intoxication aggravating? 1. At the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such
1. Habitual quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a
2. Subsequent to the plan to commit the felony certain degree of self-control; and
3. Done intentionally to embolden the malefactor and facilitate the plan to 2. Such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the
commit the crime felony

When is intoxication mitigating? Neither aggravating nor mitigating in the following instances:
1. NOT habitual 1. Where the medical certificate does not show that the accused was
2. NOT subsequent to the plan to commit the felony intoxicated
2. Where there was no showing that intoxication was habitual or intentional
Who is a habitual drunkard? 3. Where it did not sufficiently impair the accused’s will-power or his
o One given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his acts
o Habit should be actual and confirmed 4. Where there is no proof that the amount of liquor the accused had taken
o Unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence was of such quantity as to affect his mental faculties
o Lessens individual resistance to evil thought and undermines will-power 5. Where there is no proof that the accused is a habitual and excessive
making its victim a potential evildoer drinker or that he intentionally got drunk in order to commit the drink

NOTES: DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

1. Amount of alcohol consumed must be so intoxicating as to diminish a
man’s rational capacity (a glass of beer is not so intoxicating)
2. It should be proven that such amount of alcohol blurred his reason. If he
remembers the details of the shooting, he had not drunk enough.
3. The fact that an accused was able to resume his routine work after
drinking and after he committed the crime will not entitle him to
intoxication as a mitigating circumstance
4. Must be alleged in the information
As an aggravating circumstance:
1. Must be habitual
2. Must be subsequent to the plan to commit the felony
3. Must be established by clear and convincing proof. The prosecution
must prove every aggravating circumstance as fully as the crime itself
and any doubt as to its existence must be resolved in favor of the
accused.
As a mitigating circumstance:
1. Must not be habitual
What does it refer to?
o Lack of sufficient intelligence
o Not merely to illiteracy or lack of formal education or schooling
o Of such low intelligence that he does not realize the full consequences
of a criminal act
o A person who is unable to write because of lack of education facilities or
opportunities may yet be highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentally
alert that he easily and ever realizes the full significance of his acts 
CANNOT invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor
What is the test of lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance?
o Lack of sufficient intelligence
o Lack of knowledge of the full significance of one’s acts that constitutes
this mitigating circumstance
CASE LAW EXAMPLES (MITIGATING)
1. The accused was a mere wage-earner who could not sign her
statement before the police and had to affix thereto her thumbmark

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 2. Accused can neither read nor wrote and that he is illiterate
3. Accused is ignorant and unschooled
4. Accused did not even finish the first grade in elementary school
5. Accused can neither write nor read English
NOT MITIGATING
1. When the accused had finished grade one or grade two
2. Accused answered in Tagalog after the question in English
3. Robbery, Theft, Homicide: no one, however unschooled he may be, is
so ignorant as not to know that theft or robbery, or assault upon the
person of another, is inherently wrong and a violation of the law
is required, criminal action is limited to the corporate agents guilty of an
act amounting to a crime and never against the corporation itself
8. DOCTRINE (remember this Marlo): where the business itself involves a
violation of the law, the correct rule is that all who participate in it are
liable.
9. For crimes committed by a corporation, the responsible officers thereof
would personally bear the criminal liability
10. Juridical persons can bring a criminal action
Art. 46 NCC: Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all
kinds, as well as incur obligations and bring civil and criminal actions, in
conformity with laws and regulations of their organization

Is lack of instruction mitigating in treason? CASE LAW EXAMPLES

NO. Love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however 1. Violations of Anti-Money Laundering Act – penalty shall be imposed
unlettered or cultured e may be. upon:
a. the responsible officers of the corporation or
Who has the burden of proving this mitigating circumstance? b. any juridical person who participated in the commission of the
o The accused by means of competent evidence. crime or
o It must be proved positively and cannot be based on mere deduction or c. who allowed, by their gross negligence, its commission
inference. If the offender is a corporation, the court may suspend or revoke the
license
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. – 2. violations of the Anti-Dummy Law – penalty shall be imposed upon the
The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: president, manager or person in charge of such corporation
1. Principals
2. Accomplices Art. 17. Principals. –
3. Accessories The following are considered principals:
1. those who
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: take a direct part
1. Principals in the execution of the act
2. Accomplices 2. those who
directly force or
NOTES: induce others to
1. Only natural persons can be criminally liable (due to means of commit it
committing a felony). Only natural persons can commit a crime with 3. those who
personal malice or negligence cooperate in the
2. Juridical persons are incapable of acting with deceit (dolo) or fault commission of the offense
(culpa); they cannot act with malice or negligence by another act
3. Only natural persons can suffer imprisonment or deprivation of liberty as without which
a form of punishment it would not have
4. Artificial or juridical persons cannot be required to suffer imprisonment been accomplished
or deprivation of liberty as a form of punishment.
At most, the penalty may either be:
o Fine, or
o Suspension of the license
5. Criminal responsibility must be borne by the officers actually managing Principal by Direct Participation
or operating the enterprises Those who
6. If the accused is a corporation, no criminal action can lie against it, Take a
whether such corporation be resident or non-resident Direct part
7. Since a corporation cannot be proceeded against criminally because it In the
cannot commit a crime in which personal negligence or malicious intent

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
Execution of the act 13. Even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or
murder, they may be held criminally liable as principals by direct
participation of they perform overt acts which immediately cause or
Who is a principal by direct participation? accelerate the death of the victim (apply Art. 4 par. 1). In such a case, it
o One who takes a direct part in the execution of the crime is not necessary that each of the separate injuries is fatal in itself.
o Murder/homicide/parricide: the person who actually kills the victim 14. Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not make one a
o Rape: the person who had carnal knowledge of the woman through conspirator. But if his presence at the situs criminis is to provide moral
force or intimidation support and reinforce the aggression by serving as a deterrent so that
o Theft/robbery: the person who unlawfully took the personal property the people nearby would not even think of helping the victim, then he
belonging to another may be liable as a conspirator.
o If there is conspiracy in the commission of the crime, each conspirator 15. In the absence of conspiracy, the accused shall be liable individually
is a principal by direct participation and only up to the extent of his participation in the commission of the
crime.
NOTES: Conspiracy 16. Conspiracy must be established by clear and convincing evidence like
1. While it is not indispensable that the “act of agreement” be any other element of the felony. Conspiracy cannot be presumed.
demonstrated, “the fact of agreement must nevertheless be convincingly 17. Mere presence at the scene of the crime and shout “to kill” do not show
shown.” conspiracy. Accused is liable as an accomplice.
2. Conspiracy arises when the offenders “come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.” What are the elements of conspiracy? (A-D-O)
3. It is essential that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the 1. Agreement concerning the commission of a felony
execution of the unlawful objective. 2. Decision to commit the felony
4. When there is conspiracy, the conspirators are equally liable as 3. Overt acts which, though: (D-I-S)
principals by direct participation, no matter how minimal the participation a. Different
may be (act of one is the act of all) b. Separate, and
5. It is well-settled that in a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all c. Independent of each other
the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is Indicate: (C-C-P)
that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and a. Closeness
coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose or design b. Coordination, or
in bringing about the death of the victim. c. Personal association
6. In carrying a conspiracy into effect, every act of one of the conspirators So as to show a: (C3J)
in furtherance of the common purpose is in contemplation of law the act a. Concerted action
of all. b. Common criminal design
7. When there is conspiracy, it is unnecessary to pinpoint who inflicted the c. Community of criminal purpose, or
fatal blow since the conspirators are equally liable as conspirators, d. Joint criminal objective
regardless of the extent of their contributory participation.
8. The conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances surrounding the When may conspiracy be implied?
commission of the crime. From the:
9. That each of the accused knew of the criminal design of the other can  Acts committed, or
be sufficiently inferred from the circumstances of the assault, such as  From the words, remarks, or language uttered by the accused:
the arrival of the accused at the same time, their presence from the start o Before
and up to the consummation of the crime, and most important of all, the o During, or
fact that the malefactors acted in concert all throughout its commission o After the commission of the crime
pursuant to the same evident objective.
10. Conspiracy is not necessary when the accused takes a direct part in
the commission of the crime
11. In the absence of conspiracy and in case of doubt, an accused may be
held liable only as an accomplice and not as a co-principal if he had Principal by Inducement
knowledge of the criminal resolution Those who
12. Conspiracy may be inferred from the overt acts committed by the Directly force or
accused before, during or after the commission of the crime. Induce others
To commit it

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias

Who is a principal by inducement?
o One who directly forces or induces another to commit a crime
o He does not have to take part in its material execution
o One who conceives the perpetration of a crime, calls a meeting of his
co-defendants to deliberate concerning its execution, persuades them to
carry the purpose into effect, and is present at the time of its
consummation
How may a person be induced to commit a crime? (P-O-W)
1. By giving a price or offering a reward or price
2. By using words of command
When does inducement exist?
Whenever the act performed
By the physical author of the crime is
Determined by the influence of the inducer
Over the mind of him who
Commits the act
Whatever the source of such influence.
Requisites of principal by inducement (P-D-I)
1. The inducement should precede the commission of the crime
2. The inducement should be the direct and determining cause of the
crime
3. The inducement was offered with the intention of producing the result
thereof
What constitutes direct inducement?
o Acts of inducement do not consist in simple advice or counsel given
before the act is committed, or in simple words uttered at the time the
act was committed.
o Such advice and such words constitute undoubtedly an evil act, an
inducement condemned by the moral law.
o It is necessary that such advice or such words have great dominance
and great influence over the person who acts
o It is necessary that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as
physical or moral coercion or as violence itself.
NOTES:
1. The acts or utterances should be the determining cause of the crime or
done with the intention of producing the result thereof.
2. The inducer must have the positive resolution and the most persistent
effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with the
presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of
temptation to commit the crime.
3. A principal by inducement must have the intention to execute the crime.
4. The accused who merely assented to the criminal conspiracy out of
respect and fear, and after the murders were committed merely
attended a feast by way of custom, may not be considered as authors
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
by inducement or as accomplices. It wasn’t ascertained that, as
relatives or retainers of the principal by inducement, the four had any
influence over principals by direct participation, and that any of the four
said or did anything that determined the commission of the crimes.
5. To consider one as a principal by induction, it is essential to show that
the advisor had so great an ascendancy or influence that his
words were so efficacious and powerful as to amount to moral
coercion.
6. Imprudent utterances, exciting or encouraging words or remarks made
after the mortal blow has been inflicted do not make one a principal by
inducement.
7. An accused may be both a principal by direct participation and a
principal by inducement.
Principal by inducement using words of command
1. “Here is your child, do with it whatever you please. Throw it into the sea
if you choose to.” The father actually did.
2. The co-accused obeyed the order by firing the shots at their victim.
3. A father who cried out to his sons to kill those with whom they were
fighting before they were killed themselves, because they might as well
go to jail for a big thing.
4. The master ordered the servant to cut and carry away wood from land
which he knew did not belong to him.
5. A married woman suggested to her paramour, with whom she had been
maintaining illicit relations to kill her husband.
Cases where the acts of the accused are not sufficient to constitute inducement
1. “take care of the two”
2. “a chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong appreciation of a
situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless act, without the one who
spoke the word or performed the act having any expectation that his
suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it produce the
result does not constitute sufficient inducement.”
3. It depends upon whether the words of a character, and are spoken
under conditions, which give to them a direct and determinative
influence on the main actor
4. The moral influence of the words of the father may determine the court
of conduct of a son where the words of a stranger would make no
impression
5. Saying the words “Stab him! Stab him!” it not appearing that he did
anything more than say these words except to be present at the fight.
Considering that although the phrases pronounced were imprudent and
even culpable, they were not so to the extent that they may be
considered the principal and moving cause of the effect produced.
Direct inducement cannot be inferred from such phrases, as inducement
must precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing
the criminal act that without it the act would not have been performed.
6. “Rufino, strike him” was not the moving cause of the act of Rufino. The
evidence shows that Rufino would have committed the act of his own
volition, even without said words of command.
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
 Narciso and his companion showed unity of criminal purpose and intent
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation immediately before the actual stabbing.
Those who 3. Although he was not with the group of accused at the initial stage of the
Cooperate in the commission of the offense assault, undeniably, he joined the fracas and helped the other accused
By another act in their fight against the victim and his friends.
Without which 4. Guillermo is not being implicated as a co-conspirator solely because he
It would not have is the father of the principal proponent of the Ponzi scheme. He is held
Been accomplished liable as a conspirator because of his indispensable act of being the
paymaster of the foundation.
5. Where the several accused, conspiring with each other, take turns in
Who is a principal by indispensable cooperation? having carnal knowledge of the offended party against her will while the
One who, others held down her arms and legs, each of the accused is guilty of as
Having direct participation in the criminal design, many crimes of rape as there are accused. Each accused is responsible
Cooperates in the commission of the crime by committing another act without personally by him but also for the acts of rape committed by the others,
which the crime would not have been accomplished because each of them cooperated in the consummation of the rape
successively committed by the others, by acts without which such rape
What are the requisites? (P-C) could not have been accomplished.
1. Participation in the criminal resolution,
That is, They are at once, in other words, each a principal by direct participation
There is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and in respect of their own act and a principal by indispensable cooperation
Intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and in respect of the acts of the others.

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense CASES OF THE ACCUSED FOUND NOT TO BE A PRINCIPALY BY I.C.
By performing another act 1. The act of only kicking the victim before he was stabbed by the principal
Without which it would not by direct participation
Have been accomplished 2. The act of opening the gate upon hearing a knock
3. Merely introducing somebody to the principal by direct participation is
DOCTRINES: not evidence of indispensable cooperation
1. The accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by 4. Forcing the victim to drink beer with her would-be rapist especially when
indispensable cooperation. the rapist already had the intention to have sexual intercourse with ABC
2. The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or and he could have consummated the act even without such force of
intentionally rendered which cannot exist without previous cognizance of drink
the criminal act intended to be executed. 5. Joining a brother in stoning the venting
3. If contributory acts were made after the crime was committed, the 6. Convincing the rape victim to come with her until she received the
accused cannot be considered to be principal by indispensable money from the rapist
cooperation.
4. Raised suspicion does not make an accused a principal by Art. 18. Accomplices. –
indispensable cooperation. The prosecution failed to establish that the Accomplices are the persons who,
accused’s acts were of such importance that the crime would not have Not being included in Article 17,
been committed without him or that he participated in the actual murder. Cooperate in the
5. An accused may be both a principal by direct participation and a Execution of the offense
principal by indispensable cooperation. By previous or
Simultaneous acts.
CASE LAW EXAMPLES
1. Holding the victim’s hands to prevent him from drawing his pistol and
Who is an accomplice?
defending himself, while his co-accused was simultaneously stabbing
An accomplice is a person who,
the victim repeatedly.
Not being included in Article 17
2. By immobilizing the hand of Roberto and by the act of Narciso’s
As a principal by direct participation,
companion in covering the mouth of the deceased, apparently to
By inducement, or
prevent any attempt on the part of the murder victim to call for help,
By indispensable cooperation,

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
Cooperates in the execution wife, leaving again together afterwards, admits no other
Of the offense rational explanation but conspiracy.
By previous or simultaneous acts.
People vs. Tawat: Upon their arrest, they disclosed that they
An accomplice is one who had intended to rob the victim’s store and that they did so in
Knows the criminal design of accordance with their plan. It was clear that all three of them,
The principal and including the lookout, were the authors of the crime.
Cooperates knowingly or intentionally therewith
By an act which, People vs. Loreno: The SC convicted all the accused as
Even if not rendered, principals because they had acted in band. In acting as a
The crime would be committed lookout, Jimmy was armed at the time like the other
Just the same. conspirators, and he gave his companions effective means and
encouragement to commit the crime of robbery and rape.
What are the elements of an accomplice? (C-P)
1. The community of criminal design, b. A lookout is an accomplice – when he is NOT part of the
That is, conspiracy or the resolution to commit the crime and if the acts
Knowing the criminal design committed are NOT indispensable to the commission of the
Of the principal by direct participation, felony
He concurs with the latter
In his purpose; and People vs. Corbes: SC observed that he was merely
approached by one of the robbers who was tasked to look for a
2. The performance of getaway vehicle. He was not with the robbers when they
Previous or resolved to commit a robbery. When his services were
Simultaneous acts requested, the decision to commit the crime had already been
Which are not indispensable made.
To the commission of the crime.
People vs. De Vera: Knowing that Kenneth intended to
DOCTRINES murder the victim and that the three co-accused were carrying
1. Hitting the victim’s companion with a piece of wood to prevent him from weapons, Edwin had acted as a lookout to watch for
helping the victim is an act of an accomplice passersby.
2. The participation of an accomplice presupposes that the principal and
the accomplice acted in conjunction and directed their efforts to the US vs. Cortes: trampling upon the victim’s face and breast
same end. An accomplice must therefore have knowledge of the after the fatal injury was inflicted
criminal intention of the principal, and his complicity is evidenced by a
simultaneous or previous act which contributes to the commission of the People vs. Villegas: throwing stones at the deceased while
felony, as an aid thereto, whether physical or moral. the latter was struggling with the principal by direct
3. Performing overt acts, which by themselves are acts of execution, participation who inflicted the mortal wound and kicking the
makes one a principal by direct participation and not merely an victim while laying wounded on the ground
accomplice.
4. The previous acts of cooperation by the accomplice should not be An accomplice inflicts a non-mortal injury after the fatal
indispensable to the commission of the crime; otherwise, she would be wound is inflicted on the deceased by the principal by direct
liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. participation
5. Acting as a lookout may hold one liable either as a principal or
accomplice In the absence of conspiracy, aiding the actual killers by
a. A lookout is a principal – when he is part of the conspiracy casting stones at the victim and distracting his attention
and he participated in the resolution to commit the crime
Looking for a banca that was eventually used by the robbers
People vs. Castro: their concerted action in going armed and makes one an accomplice in the absence of conspiracy
together to their victim’s house, and there, while one stayed as
a lookout, the other two entered and shot the mayor and his

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 Driving a taxi cab in which the three robbers rode, knowing that unity of purpose or action. The former’s attempt to dissuade the latter
they would commit the crime, makes the driver an accomplice. from committing the murder was attested to by the prosecution witness.
The taxi driver by act was necessary to the commission of the
crime because it was through the taxi’s use that they could find Conspirator vs. Accomplice
a store that could be the object of their criminal design. Conspirator Accomplice
Conspirators take part in the criminal Accomplices merely agree to
In the absence of conspiracy, giving a pre-arranged signal to intention or design cooperate in the execution of the
another accused may make one an accomplice criminal intention or design
They decide that a crime should be They merely concur in it.
6. The principal element of every punishable complicity consists in the committed They do not decide whether the crime
concurrence of the will of the accomplice with the will of the author should be committed.
of the crime, which presupposes the mediate or immediate agreement They merely assent to the plan and
to carry out the commission thereof. cooperate in its accomplishment.
They are the authors of the crime They are merely the authors’
When such concurrence is lacking, the person committing acts directly instruments who perform acts not
connected with the passive subject CANNOT be criminally responsible essential to the perpetration of the
as an accomplice. offense
They know and agree with the criminal design
Illustrative cases
a. While it is true that Angel took sides with Simeon in the quarrel, Principal by Direct Participation vs. Accomplice
there is nothing in the evidence to show that he joined in the Principal by Direct Participation Accomplice
commission of the homicide, either as principal or accomplice. Decides that the felony is committed Comes to know about the criminal
resolution of the principal after the
b. Severo had no reason to believe that a homicidal attack was principal has reached the decision to
about to be made, and that in holding Pedro, he was not commit the felony and only then does
voluntarily cooperating therein. the accomplice agree to cooperate in
its execution
c. In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a
Where one cooperates in the Does not perform overt acts which by
crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
commission of the crime by themselves are acts of execution
directed against one and the same person is individual and not performing overt acts which by
collective and each of the participants is liable only for the acts themselves are acts of execution
committed by himself.
Accomplice under the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
d. It did not appear that, when he permitted the authors of the
1. Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or
crime to go at large, he had any knowledge of their intention to
highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the
commit any crime. The cooperation that the law punishes is the
movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or
assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which cannot
acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in
exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended
any manner derives any benefit therefrom;
to be executed.
2. Any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or
highway robbery or brigandage
7. Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not make one an
accomplice.
Certain accomplices to be punished as principals in certain crimes against
8. The responsibility of the accomplice is to be determined by acts of aid
chastity (Art. 346) – (A-C-T-A-G)
and assistance, either prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
1. Ascendant
the crime, rendered knowingly for the principal therein, and not by the
2. Guardian
mere fact of having been present at its execution, unless the object of
3. Curator
such presence was to encourage the delinquent.
4. Teacher, and
9. The fact that Jonathan helped Wilfredo carry the victim from the house
5. Any person who, by abuse of authority or confidential relationship,
to the creek did not necessarily demonstrate concurrence of wills or
shall cooperate as an accomplice in the perpetration of the crime
against chastity shall be punished as principals.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
These crimes are: First.
1. Rape By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
2. Acts of lasciviousness crime
3. Qualified seduction
4. Simple seduction
5. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party Knowledge of the commission of the crime is necessary to make one an
6. Corruption of minors accessory after the fact.
7. White slave trade
8. Forcible abduction To justify a conviction for the offense of being an accessory to the crime of theft,
9. Consented abduction the proof must show that the property was actually stolen and that the accused,
with knowledge of this fact, either:
Art. 19. Accessories. – o Availed himself of the stolen property, or
Accessories are those who, o Aided the thieves to do so, or
Having knowledge of the o Performed acts tending:
Commission of the crime,  To prevent the discovery of the crime, or
And without having participated therein,  Protect the principal
Either as principals or accomplices,
Take part to its commission By profiting themselves from the effects of the crime
In any of the following manners: o Encubidror: a person who receives any property from another, knowing
that the same had been stolen, is guilty of the crime of theft, as an
1. By profiting themselves or accessory after the fact
Assisting the offender o A person who receives any property from another, which he knows to
To profit have been stolen, for the purpose of selling the same and to share in
By the effects of the crime the proceeds of the sale, is guilty of the crime of theft
o A person who receives stolen property, for the purpose of concealing
2. By concealing or the same, is likewise guilty of the crime of theft
Destroying the body of the crime,
Or the effects or instruments thereof, NOTES:
In order to 1. One who received two stolen carabaos, knowing them to be stolen, and
Prevent its discovery used them in his farm is guilty as an accessory because he profited by
3. By harboring, the effects of the crime
Concealing, or 2. Receiving part of the ransom money as their share in the crime of
Assisting in the kidnapping for ransom makes one as accessory
Escape of the principal of the crime o Rodrigo may not have had a direct hand in the kidnapping, but
Provided the accessory acts he received part of the ransom and used it to pay off his
With abuse of his public functions or arrears in his motorcycle loan
Whenever the author of the crime is o He may not be the devil with the face of an angel that the trial
Guilty of treason, court described, but he is definitely not a saint
Parricide, 3. Receiving part of the stolen goods is an act of an accessory
Murder, or
An attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or By assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime
Is known to be habitually guilty of Hilario pleaded guilty, and said that he had received the said carabao and cales
Some other crime. from the co-defendant Victorio with instructions to sell them in order to afterwards
divide between them the proceeds of the sale.
What are the requisites? (K-D-S)
1. The accessory should have knowledge of the crime NOTES:
2. That he did not take part in its commission as principal or accomplice 1. One who disposes of stolen property after he is informed of its character
3. That he took part subsequent to its commission in any of the three ways by demand for its return to the owner is guilty as an accessory, even if
enumerated in Article 19 he did not know that the property was stolen at the time it came into his
possession
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
 2. A keeper who accepts stolen properties for deposit is an accessory
3. GR: The individual in whose possession a stolen article is found is the
principal in the crime of robbery or theft
Exception: unless he should prove who the actual author thereof was,
and that as the bearer or holder of the stolen property he is merely an
accessory
US vs. Espia: it being proven that the carabao was stolen, and being
found in the possession of Santiago without his being able to give a
satisfactory explanation as to how he came into possession of the
crime, is sufficient proof to justify his conviction of the crime of larceny.
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
Effective on March 2, 1979
What is ‘fencing’?
The act of any person who,
With intent to gain for himself or for another, shall
Buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value
which he knows, or should be known to him,
To have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
What are the elements of fencing? (R-B-K-I)
1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed
2. The accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission
of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the said crime
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item,
object, or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another
NOTES
1. It is malum prohibitum
2. It creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from evidence of
possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or theft
3. There is the need to prove that the accused knew or ought to have
known that the he bought or sold was the fruit of theft or robbery
4. This was enacted to “impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by
the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.”
5. The accused cease to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in
the crime of fencing.
6. The accessory of the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted
as such under the RPC or PD 1612.
RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M.
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016
Anti-Highway Robbery Law: Any person who knowingly acquires or receives
property taken by such highway robbers/brigands shall be considered as an
accomplice
Second.
By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
The effects or instruments thereof,
In order to prevent is discovery
NOTES
1. Such liability consists in his having intervened subsequently to the
commission of the crime, by furnishing the means to make it appear that
the deceased was armed. Such act must be characterized as
concealment, and since they are not only wrong but also unlawful, the
defendant is not exempt from liability, even though he acted in
obedience to a command from his superior, because such command
was illegal and in conflict with law and justice.
2. Dumping the gun in a garbage barrel which was used in the commission
of the murder is an act of an accessory by concealing the instrument
used in the perpetration of the crime
3. In homicide or murder if the body of the victim cannot be found, then the
crime cannot be proved. Hence, concealing the body of the victim is
tantamount to concealment of the crime itself.
4. Bringing the body of the deceased to the foot of the stairs and leaving
the same there for anyone to see are not acts of an accessory
Simply assisting him in bringing the body down the house to the foot of
the stairs and leaving said body for anyone to see, cannot be classified
as an attempt to conceal or destroy the body of the crime, the effects or
instruments thereof, both of which must be done to prevent the
discovery of the crime. There could not have been any attempt on the
part of Josefina to conceal or destroy the body of the murder.
5. Knowing where the principal hid the murder weapon does not make one
an accessory
6. Mere presence at the time the seized logs were turned over by the
DENR officers and the fact that the seized logs were placed behind his
father’s house do not make one an accessory in a prosecution for
malversation of public property through negligence or abandonment
Third.
By harboring,
Concealing, or
Assisting
In the escape of the principal of the crime,
San beda college alabang – school of law
Atty. frias
Provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or Died or escaped before he could be NO
Whenever the author of the crime is guilty of tried and sentenced
Treason, Crime was the result of an accident YES – no basis for the conviction of
Parricide, the accessory
Murder, or Due to minority or insanity NO if the crime was established
An attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or Principal assailant cannot be NO if liability as an accessory was
Is known to be identified established beyond reasonable doubt
Habitually guilty Principal acquitted on the ground of YES
Of some other crime justifying circumstance (except par 4) There is no crime and no criminal.
Neither criminal nor civil liability.
Acquitted on the ground of “state of NO
What are the two kinds of accessories under this paragraph?
necessity” (Art. 11, par. 4)
1. A public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the
Accident (Art. 12, par. 4) YES
principal of the crime, provided he does so with abuse of his public
functions; and Acquitted under exempting NO
2. A private individual or a public officer who, without abusing his public circumstances (except par. 4)
function, harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Acts that DO NOT make an accused an accessory
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime 1. The mere silence of one knowing of the commission of the crime is not
an offense and does not in itself make the person an accessory after the
NOTES fact
1. People vs. Antonio: Juanito saw that Alberto shot Arnie Tuadles. 2. To refrain from reporting an offense to the proper authorities was not an
Despite this knowledge, Juanito failed to arrest Alberto and, instead, left offense
the crime scene together with the latter. To this extent, he assisted 3. The mere fact that one does not denounce the perpetration of the crime
Alberto in his escape. to the authorities is not a punishable offense
2. Giving false information to mislead authorities in a murder case is an act 4. The mere presence of a person at the time and place of the commission
of an accessory of a crime is not sufficient to make such person an accessory to the
3. Driving the principal by direct participation in the crimes of murder and crime
homicide in his jeep to another place until he was arrested makes on an
accessory Accomplice Accessory
4. Warning the witness who was able to identify the murderers of her Does not participate in the Does not participate in the
husband not to tell anyone or else she will be killed makes the wife an commission of the crime as a commission of the crime as a
accessory because she assisted in the conceal or in the escape of the principal principal and accomplice
principal Takes part in the commission of the Takes part in the commission of the
5. The accused who assisted the principal in the crime of murder to crime by performing previous or crime by performing acts subsequent
escape by driving his bicycle with the principal on board is liable as an simultaneous acts to its commission
accessory Criminally liable for light felonies NOT criminally liable for light felonies
6. An accused is a principal, not an accessory, if there is conspiracy Sentenced to a penalty that is one Sentenced to a penalty that is two
7. The responsibility of the accessory after the fact is subordinate to that of degree lower than that penalty degrees lower than the penalty
the principal prescribed by law prescribed by law
8. The determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can
proceed independently of that of the principal. The corresponding
responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct
from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly
established in evidence, the determination of the liability of the
accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the
principal.
9. Receiving a share of the consideration for the commission of the crime
is an act of an accessory and not an accomplice

Principal Acquitted Accessory Acquitted?

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law
CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias
Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. –
The penalties prescribed for accessories
Shall not be imposed upon those who are such
With respect to their
Spouses,
Ascendants,
Descendants,
Legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
Relatives by affinity within the same degrees,
With the single exception of accessories
Falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article

Who is an accessory exempt from criminal liability?

When the principal is his:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters
5. Relatives by affinity within the same degrees
And he committed acts falling under Par. 2 and 3 of Art. 19:
a. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery
b. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal 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

What is the reason for the exemption?

It is based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name,
Which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives

NOTES
1. Even if only two of the principals are the brothers of the accused and
the others are not related to him, he is still exempt from criminal liability
2. The mother who assisted her daughter to obtain, gain or profit from the
crime of theft committed is criminally liable as an accessory
3. An accessory is criminally liable, regardless of his relationship to the
principal, when his acts falls under Art. 19, par. 1 or by profiting himself
or assisting the offender to profit from the crime.
This is because he acts not under the natural impulse of blood or of
close relationship, but under the motivation of material gain or profit.

RAMOS, MARY LOUISE M. San beda college alabang – school of law

CRIMINAL LAW, 1-a 2016 Atty. frias