Aggravating

Circumstances
Articles 14 (6-9)
 06
That the crime be committed in the
nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by
a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the
offense.

Whenever there are 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.
Instances when night time, uninhabited place or band
is considered aggravating:
When:
1. It facilitated the commission of the crime;
2.It is especially sought for the offender to ensure the commission of
the crime
3.When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of
impunity.
Nighttime
Nightime or nocturnity is a period from after sunset to sunrise,
from dusk to dawn. It is necessary that the commission of the
crime was commenced and completed at nighttime.

Darkness of the night makes nighttime an aggravating

circumstance.

Hence, when the place of the crime is illuminated or sufficiently

lighted, nighttime is not aggravating. It is also necessary that the
commission of the crime was begun and completed at night time.
Reasons why night time is considered
aggravating:
1. During night time, recognition of the accused is more difficult
2. Harder for the victim to defend himself,
3. Night time provides security for the accused
4. Mere presence of darkness gives others anxiety or fear
People vs Ventura GR Nos. 148145 July 5, 200r

FACTS:
● In the early hours of Feb. 23, 2002, Sps. Jaime and Aileen Bocateja were fast asleep in their room on the
groundfloor of their 2-storey house. Their niece and older daughter were asleep in their rooms on the
second floor. At around 2:00 AM, Jaime woke up from his sleep when Ventura and Arante stealthily
entered the couple’s room after they gained entry into the house by cutting a hole in the kitchen door.
Ventura pointed a revolver at Jaime’s face and announced a hold-up. Jaime tried to grab the revolver.
While struggling for possession of the gun, Flores stabbed Jaime three times. Meanwhile, Aileen who
had been awakened saw her husband in mortal danger and started shouting for help. Flores stabbed her
as well. She was stabbed in the chest that punctured her lung. The spouses’ niece and daughter were
also awakened and called to their neighbors for help. Ventura and Flores fled the Bocateja house,
bringing nothing with them. The spouses were brought to the hospital. Aileen died on the same day
while Jaime was hospitalized for 6 days. The appellants were intercepted by members of the Central
Investigation Unit of PNP. They recovered a .38 caliber revolver with (5) live bullets from Ventura, and a
blood-stained knife from Flores. Informations for frustrated murder of Frustrated murder and Murder.
With regard to the murder case, the RTC appreciated the aggravating and murder were filed against
them.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of night
time
RULING:
No. While the bedroom where the crimes occurred was well-lit, the evidence
shows that, in furtherance of their murderous intent, appellants deliberately took
advantage of nighttime, as well as the fact that the household members were
asleep, in order to gain entry into the Bocateja residence. Indeed, their own
testimony indicates that while they were already outside the Bocateja house at
around 11:00 p.m., they purposely waited until 2:00 a.m. before breaking into the
residence so as not to call the attention of the Bocatejas and/or their neighbors.
It is thus clear that appellants deliberately took advantage of the darkness of the
night, not to mention the fact that the Bocatejas were fast asleep, to conceal
their actions and to facilitate and insure that their entry into the victims' home
would be undetected.
Uninhabited place

It is where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable

distance from town, where houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other. It is not determined by the distance of
the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in
the place of the commission of the offense there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
Instances when uninhabited place is
aggravating
To be aggravating, it is necessary that the offender took advantage of the
place and purposely availed of it as to make it easier to commit the crime.
The offender must choose the place as an either:

1. To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal

designs; or
2. To insure concealment of the offense
People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001

FACTS:
On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., private complainant Arlie Rosalin, 21 years old, was walking along the vicinity of
Roosevelt Avenue Q.C.. Unknowingly by her, Accused Appellant was behind her and suddenly seized her, pointing a fan
knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. After appellant stripped her of her valuables, he instructed her
to walk with him past Roosevelt and Muñoz to a dark and empty basketball court in Project 7 Q.C.

Appellant kissed private complainant on the lips, neck, and breasts, which he also mashed. He likewise bit her nipple at
least three times, as well as the right side of her back and vagina. He then forced her to bend forward over the hood of
a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated her vagina with his organ. After satisfying himself in this fashion,
appellant ordered private complainant to hold and massage his penis, He then forced her to put his foul-smelling penis
into her mouth, forcing her to admire his bolitas,. After that he pushed private complainant to the ground, he went
down on her and proceeded to ravish her all over again. After all these, appellant still refused to let go of private
complainant. Instead, he made her sit astride over him, and to make sure she would not be able to escape, held her
tightly by the hair with both hands. Thereafter a struggle ensued and the victim was able to escape.
Three days later, the victim, accompanied by the police returned to the vicinity of Muñoz market and there they found
the accused-appellant who is actually working as a tricycle dispatcher. And there she was able to identify the offender
by his tattoos and face. The policemen captured him.
People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001

ISSUE:
Whether or not lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstances of uninhabited place against the accused.

RULING:

Appellant precisely sought the solitude of the basketball court to ensure that private
complainant would not be able to call for, and receive, any help. Aside from being cloaked
by the darkness of the night, the basketball court was a relatively isolated place, shielded
from the public view by the high walls of the surrounding houses. Private complainant could
have screamed at the top of her lungs and nobody still would have heard her. Without a
doubt, therefore, the trial court properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place against appellant.
Band
It means that there are more than three armed malefactors acting
together in the commission of the offense.

The RPC does not require any particular arms or weapons, so any
instrument or implement which, by reason of intrinsic nature or the
purpose for which it was made or used by the accused, is capable of
inflicting serious injuries.
Applicability of band as an aggravating
circumstance
1. The aggravating circumstance of by a a band is considered in crimes
against property or against persons including the crime of illegal
detention or treason.
2. Inherent in brigandage
3. Abuse of superior strength
4. All armed men must take direct part
People vs Lungbos
On 12 July 1980, Zamboanga City, in Angels Garden, at about 7:30pm, Romeo Narido,
Jackariya Lungbos with 2 unidentified men were drinking beer, ordered cigarettes and
pulutan. At 10pm Lungbos went out of the restaurant. Narido closed the door and then
proceeded to a table and collared a customer, Rolando Chiong. When he attempted to stand
up, he was shot by Narido. Narido’s 2 companions proceeded to the cashier, poked a gun at
Elizabeth Mahinay and at Julian Legarde, the father-in-law of the restaurant owner, who was
seated behind the counter. They demanded the day’s from Mahinay, P800; and divested
Legarde of his wristwatch and wallet with P40. A burst of gunfire rang from the counter, then
the malefactors fled with their loot.
Chiong, Legarde and the restaurant’s cook, Flaviano Gonzales were hit. Legarde died form
gun shot wound in the abdomen. The two with medical intervention, survived. Narido and
Lungbos were apprehended and arraigned, pleaded not guilty. During the trial, Narido
escaped but was recaptured a month later. He then requested for a re-arraignment,
confessed his guilt, and pleaded guilty to the charges.
People vs Lungbos
ISSUE:
WON the aggravating circumstances of crime committed by band be appreciated in this
case.

Ruling:
There is a band whenever more than three malefactors acted together in the commission of
the offense (Art. 14, subpar. 6, Revised Penal Code). The crime was not committed by a band
because the prosecution failed to establish that all four of the malefactors were armed. Only
Narido and the two John Does were armed. Nowhere in the record can we find evidence that
Lungbos was also armed. Band is not aggravating when only three malefactors are armed.
(People vs. Maalihan, 130 SCRA 583)
That
07
the crime be
committed on the occasion
of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic, or other calamity
or misfortune.
Basis
The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of
the commission of the crime. The reason is the debased form of
criminality met one 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.
When considered as an aggravating
circumstance
Requisites:
1. Crime was committed when there was a calamity or misfortune.
2. Offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition
from such misfortune
People vs. Arpa
Facts:
Dicto Arpa and Maalum Arpa boarded a motor banca bound for Talicud
Island, Davao. The motor banca developed engine trouble in the middle
of the sea. Then, Dicto fired his revolver to scare the passengers of the
banca, hitting one passenger. They took and carried away the motor
banca. As a result, all the passengers of the motor banca jumped.
Alfonso, Bernardo Villegas and Lourdes all surnamed Villegas drowned
and died. The trial court convicted the accused of Robbery with Triple
Homicide. The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
"on the occasion of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune."
Issue:
Whether or not the crime was committed on the occasion of conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
Ruling:
No, it was not committed in the above circumstances.
The reason for the provision of this aggravating circumstance "is found in the
debased form of criminality met in one 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." Clearly, no such condition of great calamity
or misfortune existed when the motor banca developed engine trouble.
It should be added that there is nothing in the record whatever to indicate that
the engine trouble developed was a serious one such as to create confusion and
apprehension on the part of the passenger.
 08
That the crime be committed
with the aid of (1) armed men
or (2)persons who insure or
afford impunity.
When circumstance is present
It is present when the crime to which it is attached to is committed with
the aid of:

1. Armed men; or
2. Persons who insured of afford impunity
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 - (armed men are only accomplices)
Circumstances when aid of armed men is not
considered as aggravating circumstance
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally
armed
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan or purpose.
3. The casual presence of the armed men near the place where the
crime was committed, appears that the accused did not avail himself
of their aid or relied upon them to commit the crime.
People vs. Lozano
FACTS:
On the 24th day of November, 1997 at about 9:30 o clock in the evening, along V. Rama Ave. in
Cebu City, SPO1 Armando Lozano, riding on two motorcycles, conniving and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, together with Peter Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe,
armed with unlicensed firearms and abuse of superior strength, killed one Alden Abiabi.
Herminigildo Damuag testified when they reached Pica Lumber, a white Tamaraw FX
overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing them to slow down. Motorcycle
riders from behind suddenly first two shots and Abiabi fell from the first motorcycle and
slumped on the pavement face down. While Damuag was trying to control his motorcycle
after he got, he noticed a third motorcycle chasing him. Upon reaching the Five Brothers
restaurant, appellant fire two more shots at him. However, Damuag managed to survived the
attacked due to timely medical attention given to him.
ISSUE:
Whether the aggravating circumstance of the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons to insure or afford impunity be appreciated?

HELD:
Yes, the Supreme Court reiterated trial court’s decision that the offenses were
committed with abuse of superior strength. The malefactors not only
outnumbered the victims; at least two of them were armed. More, the
circumstances clearly show that the assailants deliberately took advantage of
their combined strength in order to consummate the crime. Nevertheless, the
aggravating circumstance of abuse is absorbed by treachery.
 09
That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is one who, at the

time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been convicted by
final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of
this Code.
Rationale
The law considers this aggravating circumstance because when a person
has been committing felonies embraced in the same title, the implication
is that he is specializing on such kind of crime and the law wants to
prevent any specialization.
Requisites
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. Both the 1st and 2nd offenses are embraced in the same title of this
Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of new offense.
Necessity of conviction to come in the order
in which they are convicted
There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense
committed prior to the offense involved in the previous conviction.
Effect of pardon to recidivism
Pardon does not obliterate recidivism, even if it is absolute because it
only excuses the service of the penalty, not the conviction.

Exception: If the offender had already served out his sentence and was
subsequently extended pardon.
Effect of amnesty to recidivism
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and his effect, thus it obliterates
recidivism.
Recidivism not subject to prescription
No matter how long ago the offender was convicted, if he is subsequently
convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the RPC, it is taken
into account aggravating in imposing penalty.
People vs. Lagarto
FACTS:
On May 25 1983, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening more or less, inside the public market Bgy. Little Venice,
Municipality of Laoang, Province of Northern Samar, Philippines, Eugenio Lagarto y Getalado, Jr. with
deliberate intent to kill with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Reynaldo Aducal, who was buying fish in the
public market with the use of a Batangas fan knife or Balisong which the above-named accused had provided
himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon said victim fatal wounds on his chest, which wounds caused
the instantaneous death of the victim.

Ruling:

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. the accused was convicted
of homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 on September 15, 1983. There being no appeal, the judgment therein
became final on October 11, 1983. The second conviction was rendered on October 26, 1983 for Murder. Hence,
it is crystal clear that the accused is a recidivist: the accused had been convicted by final judgment at the time
of the rendition of the judgment for the second offense.