Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On Criminal Law
Aggravating Circumstances
ART.14
Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him as means to
realize criminal purpose
It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where taking advantage of official position is made
by law an integral element of the crime or inherent in the offense,
Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document committed by public officers (Art. 171).
When the public officer did not take advantage of the influence of his position, this aggravating
circumstance is not present
NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is also inherent in the case of accessories under Art. 19,
par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime), and in crimes
committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the
crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is directly vested with jurisdiction and has
the power to govern and execute the laws
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is not a “public authority within the
contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person in authority under Art. 152, that status is only for
purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.152 (resistance and disobedience)
The crime should not be committed against the public authority (otherwise it will constitute direct assault
under Art.148) This is NOT applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent.
AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the maintenance of public order and protection and
security of life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
RANK – The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of the offended party in
reference to others (There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended
party).
AGE – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
DWELLING – must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort (combination of
house and store not included), may be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers. It
includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house
NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the crime be wholly or partly committed therein
or in any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that he must be
the owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein even for a temporary duration
or purpose.
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.
NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended party is deemed to have given the provocation,
and the fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is NOT an aggravating
circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his right to the respect
and consideration due him in his own house
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is
inherent.
However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended
party’s house.
3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the provocation made by the victim and the commission of the
crime by the accused.
Par. 4. That the act be committed with: (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious ungratefulness
There are two aggravating circumstances present under par.4 which must be independently appreciated
if present in the same case.
While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the case, they cannot be lumped
together. Abuse of confidence requires a special confidential relationship between the offender and the
victim, while this is not required for there to be obvious ungratefulness
NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction (Art. 337).
NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and manifest ingratitude on the
part of the accused.
Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is committed in the palace or in the presence
of the Chief Executive.
Except for the third which requires that official functions are being performed at the time of the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se even if no official duties or
acts of religious worship are being conducted there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place dedicated to the worship of
God.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a
band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense
NOTE: When present in the same case and their element are distinctly palpable and can subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.
NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. When the place of the crime
is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating. It is not considered aggravating when the crime
began at daytime.
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was conceived of shortly
before commission or when crime was committed at night upon a casual encounter
A bare statement that crime was committed at night is insufficient. The information must allege that
nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the crime
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided upon
in the same case, they can be considered separately if such circumstances have different factual bases.
Thus:
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was treachery as the victim was stabbed while lying face
up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon proof that it facilitated the commission of the
offense and was taken advantage of by the accused.
UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.
What should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed malefactors that shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense
NOTE: There must be four or more armed men
If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band because it is
undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation.
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of illegal
detention or treason but does not apply to crimes against chastity
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila,
Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
Steve, Danny, and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and
Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy,
and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
No, nighttime can not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that
the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that
they took advantage of nighttime.(People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well lighted.
However, Band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed
malefactors. In a recent Supreme Court Decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
Jose,Domingo,Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a
house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in
the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying
to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house.
Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted
away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did
the four commit? Explain.
c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances maybe appreciated against the four?
Explain.
a. Jose,Domingo, and Manolo committed robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery
with Rape.
b. The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several
persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are
synonymous with ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty.(People vs. Solis, 182
SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune
If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party during the calamity/misfortune, this aggravating
circumstance may not be taken into consideration.
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in a
minor capacity directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely present at the crime scene. Neither
should they constitute a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance would be cuadrilla.
RECIDIVIST – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
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 title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.” It is employed in its general sense, including the
rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from
arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL, not the time of the commission of the offense.
GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to
attach thereto certified copy of the sentences rendered against the accused.
Exception: If the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession and on the witness
stand.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the
first and second felonies.
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. However, pardon does not obliterate the fact that
the accused was a recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon for the first offense but he
commits another felony embraced in the same title of the Code, the first conviction is still counted to
make him a recidivist
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism affects only the periods of a penalty, except in
prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and gambling (PD 1602) wherein recidivism increases the penalties
by degrees. No other generic aggravating circumstance produces this effect
In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed after the commission of the
preceding offense provided that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused had
already been convicted of the first offense.
If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered as only one, hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of convicted handed
down on the same day shall be considered as only one conviction.
REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as a separate convictions, at the time of his
trial for one crime the accused shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of the other.
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found
guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against the accused both
recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction,
the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency.
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this
case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again
found guilty of Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the
same title (title ten, book 2) of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the
commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third
time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered.
Par. 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 attaches a lighter penalty.
Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall shall have served out his sentence for the first
offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the code.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for his previous conviction/s,
or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same time constitute
reiteracion, hence this aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of price, reward or promise.
Requisites:
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the
criminal act
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any artifice involving great
waste and ruin
Requisites:
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive
at a calm judgment.
To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period sufficient to afford full
opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the conscience to overcome the
resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that the offender
had sufficient time to reflect upon the consequences of his act but still persisted in his determination to
commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR No.140871, August 8, 2002)
When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. However, if the
offender premeditated on the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against the offender the
aggravating circumstance of premeditation, because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his
premeditation.
Requisite
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate the commission of the crime.
CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. A
chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design. It is employed as a
scheme in the execution of the crime
FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner that
would enable the offender to carry out his design
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been deliberately adopted as the means,
methods, or forms for the treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where they are
adopted for a different purpose in the commission of the crime.
Ex:
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980), where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to get
his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless driver.
In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986) there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody, when in fact they had already planned to
kill the driver.
The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the offender was intended to or
did make identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair or beard.
Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.
Requisites:
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the
delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot
be said that the crime was attended by treachery.
TREACHERY ABSORBS:
1. Craft
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
5. Aid of armed men
6. Nighttime
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act
UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.
REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their
property and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the
law punishes him with more severity.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, treachery, nighttime, and unlawful entry?
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the
victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
2. Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep.
Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the
act without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made.(People vs.
Dequina, 60 Phil. 27, People vs. Miranda,et.al, 90 Phil. 91)
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or
availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The intention to commit the crime was conceived
shortly before its commission.(People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568) Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in
treachery.
Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect ENTRANCE. If the wall, etc., is broken in
order to get out of the place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the building Therefore, If the offender broke a
window to enable himself to reach a purse with money on the table near that window, which he took
while his body was outside of the building, the crime of theft was attended by this aggravating
circumstance.
Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by professional criminals to avail
themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility.
Intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to commit crime and
flee and abscond once the same is committed.
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and deliberately used the motor
vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their
escape.
MEANING OF “or other similar means” Should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other
efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing
other wrong not necessary for its commission
CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.
In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the
victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong physical suffering.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed, this would also qualify
the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.
Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO provision for aggravating circumstances of
a similar or analogous character.
a. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately augmenting the
victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
seeing the victim suffer in pain.(People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316)
b. Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering
that the crime is one against chastity.