Aggravating Circumstances

The aggravating circumstances are based on the higher degree of perversity of the offender manifested at the time of the commission of the felony;
the place, the means, ways or methods employed; his relationship with the offended party; or other personal circumstance and others.

Kinds of aggravating circumstances:

1. Generic – that which generally applies to all crimes like recidivism.
2. Specific – that which applies to a particular felony like cruelty in crimes against persons.
3. Qualifying – that which changes the nature of the felony, as treachery in murder.
4. Inherent – that which is part of the felony committed, as unlawful entry in robbery with force upon things.
Distinction:
Generic Qualifying

1. Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating. 1. Cannot be offset by anordinary mitigating.

2. Cannot be proved as such unless

2. Maybe proved even though not alleged. alleged in the information. However, it may be proved as a
generic aggravating circumstance.

3. Not offset have the effect of increasing the penalty to the maximum but 3. Changes not only the nature
not beyond that provided by law. but also the name of the offense.

The circumstances specifying an offense or aggravating the penalty thereof must be proved as conclusively as the act itself, mere suppositions or
presumptions being insufficient to establish their presence according to law. The Supreme Court said that even if the generic aggravating
circumstance is not alleged in the information, the same may be proved even over the objection of the adverse party. (Q10, 1991 Bar)

Specific circumstances:
1. Taking advantage of Official Position.
That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. (Art. 14, Par. 1)

It is not only necessary that the person committing the crime be a public officer; he must also use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which
such office gives him as a means by which he realizes his purpose. (People v. Yturriaga, 86 Phil. 534)

If the abuse of the office is an integral element of the felony as in falsification of public document by a public officer who took advantage of his official
position, bribery or malversation, the circumstances is not considered. This means that this aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime, since,
it cannot be committed except by public officer. (People v. Teves, 44 Phil 275)

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities. (Art. 14, Par. 2)
Public authorities is a person in authority, not an agent of a person in authority, and that the person in authority should be engaged in the exercise
of his public functions, and that he should not be the object of the crime. It is also essential that the offender knows of the identity of the public
authority.
The Chief of Police is a person in authority for he is vested with authority to maintain peace and order and is duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend
violators of the laws. (People v. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308) A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority. Teachers, professors, supervisors of public
and duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, as well as lawyers are persons in authority only for the purposes of Direct Assault (Art.
148) and Simple Resistance and Disobedience (Art. 151), but not for the purpose of the aggravating circumstance in this paragraph. (People v. Tac-
an, 182 SCRA 601)

If the crime is committed against the public authority, the crime committed is direct assault and this aggravating circumstance will be considered
absorbed. (US v. Rodriguez, 29 Phil. 150)

3. Act be committed with insult to or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in
the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. (Art. 14, Par. 3)
There are four aggravating circumstances in this paragraph, which, if present in the commission of the crime are considered as one aggravating
circumstance only.

There must, however, be proof showing that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or sex of the offended party. (People v.
Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548) So, these circumstances was not considered when the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the offense.

This aggravating circumstance is considered only in crimes against persons, security or honor and not in crimes against property such as robbery
with homicide. (People v. Ang, 62833, Oct. 8, 1985) The mere fact that the victim was a woman is not itself sufficient to support the contention that
there was insult of disrespect to sex. It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman, showing insult
or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance, such as compelling a woman to go to the house of the accused
against her will. (US v. Quevengco, 2 Phil. 412)
Disregard of respect due to sex and age may be included in treachery. (People v. Limaco, 99 Phil. 35)

Dwelling includes dependencies, staircase, and enclosures under the house. A place of “sanctuary worthy of respect.” (People v. Parazo, May 14,
1997) A combination house and store is not a dwelling. (People v. Magnaue, 3510, May 30, 1951) For dwelling to be appreciated, it is not necessary
that the victim is the owner of the dwelling. It is enough that she has the right to be in the dwelling and not only as an incidental circumstance. (People
v. Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206) It is aggravating where the place is, even for a brief moment, a home to the offended party though he is not the owner
thereof, provided that he did not provoke the commission of the crime and the dwelling is not that of the offender also. (People v. Badilla, 185 SCRA
554)
Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance even if one does not enter the house of the victim. Such as when the assailant from the outside shoots
the victim inside his house. (People v. Bautista, 440, Nov. 29, 1947) This circumstance is not considered where provocation was given by the
offended party or where both parties reside in the same dwelling. In case of a boarding house, each room of a boarder is considered a separate
dwelling. (People v. Daniel, 75 OG 4834)

Dwelling is aggravating if adultery is committed in the conjugal dwelling because the respect due the conjugal house is violated (US v. Ibanez, 33 Phil.
611) if the paramour is not residing in the conjugal dwelling.

4. Acts be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. (Art. 14, Par. 4)
The requisites are:
a. The offended party had trusted the offender.
b. The offender abused such trust.
c. That such abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
If the accused raped a girl who was entrusted to his care by the parents, there is betrayal of confidence reposed upon him by the parents but not an
abuse of the confidence of the offended party (People v. Crumb, 46 OG 6162) since the confidence between the parties must be personal. But if the
offender was the servant of the family and sometimes took care of the child, whom she later killed, there is present grave abuse of confidence. (People
v. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283)

5. Crime be committed in the (1) Palace of the Chief Executive, or (2) in his presence, or (3) where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties, or in (4) a place dedicated to religious worship. (Art. 14, Par. 5)
In crime committed in the presence of the President, it is not necessary that the latter be exercising his functions. With respect to the first, third, and
fourth, the crime must have been committed with full consciousness of the place; in other words, the offender must have intended to commit the crime
at the place, knowing fully well that the place deserves respect.

This circumstance is present when the accused stabbed the victim in the office of the Chief of Police who was investigating a fist fight between them.
(People v. De Ananias, 96 Phil. 979)

6. Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band.

That the crime be committed at night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of
the offense. Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band. (Art. 14, Par. 6)

Nocturnity comprises the period of the day between sunset and the beginning of dawn. But for nighttime to be appreciated, it is not absolutely
necessary that the offender purposely sought nighttime to commit the crime; it is enough that it facilitated the commission of the crime or his escape
or prevented identification. (People v. Cristobal, 91 SCRA 71) Where nocturnity is so interlocked with the circumstance of treachery as to become
part of the latter, nocturnity cannot be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Pardo, 79 Phil. 566) If the commission
of the crime was commenced at day time and it was consummated at nighttime, such is not aggravated. (US v. Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4) Chance meeting
between the accused and the victim negates nighttime as an aggravating circumstances. (People v. Aquino, 124 SCRA 835) (Q9, 1994 Bar; Q3, 1997
Bar)
Uninhabited place (Despoblado) is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place
where the crime was committed there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. (People v. Bangug, 52 Phil. 87) Provided that
solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the felony. (People v. Coderes, 104 SCRA 255)
Band consists of at least four armed malefactors organized with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design. They should have acted together in
the commission of the crime. If one has no direct participation in the commission of the crime, like a principal by inducement there is no band. (Gamara
v. Valero, 51 SCRA 322) In a band, conspiracy is presumed, it need not be proved.
Band is inherent in brigandage but not in simple robbery committed by band. It is not considered in the crime of rape. (People v. Corpus, 43 OG
2249) Band and abuse of superior strength have the same essence which is the utilization of the combined strength of the assailants to overpower
the victim and consummate the killing. (People v. Medrano, 31871, December 14, 1981)

7. Crime committed on the Occasion of Calamity.

That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. (Art. 14, Par. 7)

This is aggravating because the offender “who in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking
advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.” (US v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150)

The development of engine trouble at sea is a misfortune but it does not come within the meaning of “other calamity or misfortune.” (People v. Arpa,
27 SCRA 1037)

8. Aid of Armed Men who insure or afford impunity.

That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. (Art. 14, Par. 8)
It should be borne in mind, that the armed men should not participate in the execution of the felony. Otherwise, they become co-principals. Casual
presence is not aggravating if the offender did not avail himself of any of their aid nor did he knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission
of the crime. (US v. Abaigar, 2 Phil. 417) If used as a means to insure its execution in the killing of a person, such is absorbed in treachery.

9. Recidivism (Art. 14, Par. 9)

Recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of this Code. Recidivism involves at least two conviction, and hence, it is a form of plurality of crimes like reiteration, habitual delinquency
and quasi-recidivism. The first conviction must be by final judgment and must take place prior to the second conviction. (People v. Baldera, 86 Phil.
189) The number of years intervening between the convictions is immaterial. Recidivism is likewise considered even if the offender has been given
absolute pardon for the first conviction, since pardon merely extinguishes the penalty (US v. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147) but not in the case of amnesty as
such extinguishes all the effects in law of the crime committed. (US v. Francisco, 10 Phil. 185)
Habitual delinquent is a person who within a period of ten (10) years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crime of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, has been found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener. (Art. 62, Par. 5)
Distinction:
Recidivism Habitual Delinquency

1. Applicable only to robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, serious

1. Applies to all offenses embraced in the same title of the Code. and less
serious injuries.

2. Need not be alleged in the complaint or information. 2. Must be alleged or charged.

3. If not offset, merely raises the imposition of the prescribed penalty to

3. Carries with it an additional penalty.
its maximum period.

4. Between each conviction there should not be a lapse of time

4. Intervening period between convictions is immaterial.
of more than 10 years.
May the offender be a recidivist and a habitual delinquent at the same time? Yes, if the offender was convicted for the third time of theft within the
conditions prescribed by law, the first and second convictions referring to robbery and estafa, recidivism will be aggravating in the imposition of the
principal penalty for the crime of theft. At the same time, by reason of such recidivism, he is also a habitual delinquent, and is sentenced to the
additional penalty provided by law, although in the imposition of the said additional penalty, recidivism is no longer considered as an aggravating
circumstance as it is inherent in this form of habitual delinquency. (People v. Manalo, 8586, May 25, 1956) May the offender be a habitual delinquent
without being a recidivist? Yes, if the three convictions refer to the specific felonies not embraced in the same title of the Code like robbery, falsification
and serious physical injuries.

Quasi-recidivism arises when the offender shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve the
sentence, or while serving the same, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony, besides being
penalized as a habitual delinquent, if applicable. (Art. 160) This is not a separate crime by itself.
It is necessary to allege recidivism in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the previous sentence rendered against the accused to
be presented during the trial. (People v. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36) (Q18, 1993 Bar)

10. Reiteracion or Habituality.

That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which
it attaches a lighter penalty. (Art. 14, Par. 10)

In reiteracion (habituality), it is essential that the offender must have been previously punished, i.e., he must have served, partially or totally, the
penalty imposed upon him; that the penalty for the crime for which he was previously punished, must be equal or greater than the penalty for the
crime for which he is on trial, or that he had previously been punished for 2 or more offenses the penalty for which is lighter than the penalty prescribed
for the offenses for which he is on trial. Reiteracion is discretionary on the court. In reiteracion, the offenses are not embraced in the same title of
the Code.
To be appreciated, it is necessary to present as evidence certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused, except when the accused
pleads guilty to an information alleging reiteracion. (People v. Monterey, Sept. 3, 1996)

11. Crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. (Art. 14, Par. 11)
It is not enough that the one committed the crime received a gift or a reward; it is essential that such price or reward or promise must have been the
prime consideration in the commission of the crime. Thus, if the money was given, without any previous promise, after the commission of the crime
as an expression of sympathy, this circumstance cannot be present. (US v. Flores, 28 Phil. 29) The offender who induced others to commit the crime
for a price, promise or reward is a principal by inducement. (People v. Otero, 51 Phil. 201)

12. Crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive,
or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. (Art. 14, Par. 12)
It is essential that any of the means mentioned must have been used by such offender in the commission of the crime. Thus, if the building is burned
as a means to kill the occupant, the crime will be murder, not murder with arson. (People v. Villarega, 54 OG 3482) This is the only aggravating
circumstance that could be a crime in itself. Such that if a hand grenade was thrown into a house and as a result of the explosion, the house was
damaged but no one was injured, the crime committed is the crime involving destruction. (People v. Comporedondo, 47 OG 779)

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. (Art. 14, Par. 13)
The 3 requisites of evident premeditation are:
a. The time when the accused determined to commit the crime.
b. An act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination.

c. A sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. (Q3, 1997 Bar)

In order that premeditation may be considered either as an aggravating circumstance or as a qualifying circumstance, it must be evident, that is, the
intention to kill must be manifest and it must have been planned in the mind of the offender and carefully meditated. Conspiracy does not
necessarily imply evident premeditation although premeditation can co-exist with price or reward. (US v. Nabor, 7 Phil. 267) This circumstance is
inherent in the crime of robbery, especially committed by several persons, since there must be an agreement and the persons have to meditate and
reflect on the manner of carrying out the crime and they have to act immediately in order to succeed. (People Carillo, supra) But it may be considered
in robbery with homicide (People v. Valeriano, 1259, Sept. 19, 1955), if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing.

Mere threats to kill without evidence of sufficient time for meditation and reflection do not constitute evident premeditation. (People v. Apao Moro,
6771,May 18, 1957) An attack made in the heat of anger negates evident premeditation. (People v. Amin, 39046, June 30, 1975)

14. Craft, fraud, or disguise is employed. (Art. 14, Par. 14)

These are intellectual means in the commission of a crime and are separate aggravating circumstances.

By the employment of craft and fraud, the offender resorts more to intellectual rather than material means in order to attain his objective. Craft is
cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted to by the accused to carry out his evil design. (People v. Zea, 130 SCRA 77) There is craft when
the accused assumed a position of authority to gain entrance in a house to enable him to be alone with the offended party to commit acts of
lasciviousness upon her. (People v. Timbol, 47 OG 1859) Also, this circumstance is aggravating where the offenders pretended to be bona fide
passengers of a jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but once inside the jeepney, they robbed the passengers and the driver. (People v. Lee,
66848, Dec. 20, 1991) If the craft is used to insure the commission of the crime without risk to the accused, it is absorbed by treachery. (People v.
Malig, 46 OG Sup. 11, 255)
Fraud which constitutes deceit and manifested by insidious words or machination is illustrated in the case of the step-father of the offended party, who
taking advantage of the absence of the her mother, took the young girl away and told her she was to be taken to the house of her godmother but
instead she was taken to another house where she was raped. (People v. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539)
The term disguise refers to anything that the offender may use to prevent recognition. If in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized, such
cannot be aggravating. (People v. Sonsona, 8966, May 25, 1955)
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. (Art. 14, Par. 15)
There must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, and to appreciate it, it is necessary to evaluate the physical
conditions of the protagonists and the arms employed by each side. (People v. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285) There must be deliberate intent to take
advantage of the same. (People v. Bello, 10 SCRA 298) Mere numerical superiority does not necessarily involve superiority in strength. It is necessary
to prove, besides, that attackers “cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from superiority in strength. (People v. Elizaga, 47 OG 38)

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in parricide when the husband killed his wife, as generally the husband is physically stronger than the wife.
(People v. Galapia, supra) Also, it is inherent in rape or is absorbed in the element of force. (People v. Saylan, 130 SCRA 159)

Intoxication a victim with intention to kill him is characterized by means employed to weaken the defense. (People v. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280)

16. Treachery
That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. (Art. 14, Par. 16)
In parricide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance as well as in homicide, if it is not alleged in the information.

Even a frontal attack may be considered as such if it was sudden and unexpected so that the victim had no
chance to defend himself or evade the blow. However, suddenness of the attack itself does not indicate treachery. It must be sought as a
means to insure the execution of the crime and to insure the attacker from the defense forthcoming from the offended party. (People v. Bongo, 26909,
Feb. 22, 1974) Treachery must exist at the commencement of the execution of the felony. (US v. Balagtas, 19 Phil. 164) Thus, if the attack begun
without treachery but the same continued, and consummated with treachery, it will not be considered. (Q6, 1995 Bar; Q6, 1993 Bar)

Treachery absorbs nighttime, abuse of superior strength, uninhabited place, by band, aid of armed men, as well as means to weaken the
defense. When treachery rests upon a separate fact, nighttime is not absorbed by treachery. Treachery may co-exist with evident premeditation, as
when the accused quarreled with the deceased, threatened to kill him and on the following day did so, when he surreptitiously entered the house of
the deceased and without warning, fired at the deceased who was shot unaware. (People v. Mutya, 11255, Sept. 30, 1959) Treachery is inherent in
murder by poisoning. (People v. Caliso, 58 Phil. 283) (Q10, 1991 Bar)

Any sudden and unexpected attack from behind is clearly treacherous. However, an attack from behind or shooting at a fleeing victim is not
necessarily treacherous unless it appears that the method of attack was adopted by the accused deliberately with a special view to the accomplishment
of the act without any risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assaulted may make. (People v. Canete, 44 Phil. 478) A shot in the back
of the victim’s head is not conclusive proof of treachery; the manner of aggression or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim had began
and developed, must be proved. (People v. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658)

But where the persons killed are children of tender years, being 1 year old, 6 years old and 12 years old, the killing is murder even if the manner of the
attack was not shown. (People v. Ganohon, 74670, April 30, 1991)
In sum, the following requisites must concur for treachery to be present:
a. The culprit employed means, methods or forms of execution which directly and specially tend to insure the offender’s safety from any retaliatory act
on the part of the offended party.

b. That such means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously shown. (People v. Clemente, 21 SCRA 261) (Q3, 1997 Bar)

17. That the means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy (shame or disgrace) to the natural effects of the act.(Art. 14,
Par. 17)
It is, as the saying goes, adding insult to injury; for instance, raping a married woman in the presence of her husband who was helpless to render
any assistance, much less to defend her as he was bound. Ignominy to be appreciated must be inflicted on the victim while he is still alive. Thus,
there is no ignominy when the accused sliced and took the flesh from the thighs, legs and shoulder of the victim after killing her with a knife. (People
v. Balondo, 27401, Oct. 31, 1969) There is ignominy where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary position, but also, the
dog position as dogs do, i.e., entry from behind.

Ignominy produces moral suffering, while cruelty produces physical suffering.

18. Crime be committed after an unlawful entry. (Art. 14, Par. 18)
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. Entering through the window is unlawful entry. The unlawful
entrance must be made for the purpose of committing a crime like rape or murder. But it is inherent in the crime of trespass to dwelling (US v. Barberan,
17 Phil. 509) and in robbery with force upon things although it may be considered in robbery with violence or intimidation against persons. (Q3, 1997
Bar)

Unlawful entry to be aggravating must be for the purpose of entrance and not for the purpose of escape. It must be alleged in the information to qualify
the crime to robbery; otherwise, the crime will be theft. (People v. Sunga, 43 Phil. 205)

19. As a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.(Art. 14, Par. 19)
This means is for the purpose of committing a crime. It is inherent in robbery with force upon things.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other
similar means. (Art. 14, Par. 20, as amended by RA 5438)
There are two distinct aggravating circumstances. The first shows the greater perversity of the offender in taking advantage of the youthfulness of
those persons for criminal purposes. The second is intended to meet the problem created by modern criminal in resorting to faster means of
conveyance to commit the crime. The use of motor vehicles facilitates the commission of the crime. If the vehicle is used to facilitate only the escape
of the offender it is not aggravating. A scooter and a motorcycle are included under “similar means.”

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission. (Art. 14, Par. 21)
It is essential that the offender inflicted the wounds not necessary for the crime but for the purpose of making the victim suffer more. For cruelty to
exist, there must be proof that the acts were perpetrated while the victim was still alive. This circumstance is distinguished from that of ignominy in
that cruelty refers to physical suffering, whereas, ignominy is circumscribed to moral suffering. Gagging of the mouth of a 3-year old child with
stockings, dumping him with head downward into a box, and covering the box with sacks and other boxes, causing slow suffocation, and as a result
the child died, constitutes cruelty. (People v. Lara, 113 SCRA 316) Also, in the crime of rape, where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her
face with a lighted cigarette while raping her. (People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316) (Q8, 1994 Bar)
The fact that 13 stabs wounds were inflicted upon the victim does not constitute cruelty, absent proof that such wounds were inflicted sadistically in a
way that made the victim agonize before the fatal blow which snuffed out his life was delivered. (People v. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19)

22. Under influence of dangerous drugs. (RA 6425, as amended)

When a crime is committed by an offender who is under the influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the definition of a crime and the application of the penalty provided in the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Belgar, 92155, March 11,
1991)

23. Syndicate or Organized Crime Group.

This is a special aggravating circumstance, contemplates of a group purposely formed or organized to engage in criminal activities for gain, not merely
the commission of a particular crime by two or more persons who confederated and mutually helped one another in its commission. The existence of
a conspiracy does not necessarily imply or carry with it this aggravating circumstance. (People v. Alberca, June 26, 1996)