ARTICLE 14 PARAGRAPH 3 & 4

AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES

CRIMINAL LAW 1
PARAGRAPH 3 ARTICLE 14

(1) That the act be committed with insult or

in disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or
(2) that is be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
DEFINITIONS:

RANK - the designation or title of distinction used to fix the

relative position of the offended party in reference to others.
ex. killing of an army general

AGE - may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
ex. a person killed was 80 years old and very weak

SEX - refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.

ex. direct assault upon a female teacher

DWELLING - must be a building or structure exclusively used

for rest and comfort.
REQUISITES OF DISREGARD TO RANK, AGE, OR SEX:

1. Crimes must be against the victim’s PERSON or his HONOR

2. There is DELIBERATE INTENT to offend or insult the respect

due to the victim’s rank, age, or sex

DISREGARD of SEX; NOT APPLICABLE WHEN:

1. Offender acted with passion and obfuscation.

2. There exists a relationship between the offended party and
the offender; and
3. The condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime.
ELEMENTS OF THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF DWELLING:

1. Crime occured in the DWELLING of the victim.

2. NO PROVOCATION on the part of the victim.

APDUHAN v PEOPLE G.R. No. L-19491

The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or

intimidation of persons, like the offense at bar. The rationale behind the
pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the
necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in
crimes which could be committed in no other place than in the house of
another, such as trespass and robbery in an inhabited house. This Court in
People vs . Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances (of
dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed,
because the crime being robbery with violence or intimidation against persons
(specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors thereof could have committed
it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim."
NOTES:

A) THE 4 CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE CONSIDERED SINGLE OR TOGETHER.

IF ALL THE FOUR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT, THEY HAVE THE WEIGHT
OF ONE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE ONLY.

B) DWELLING WILL ONLY BE AGGRAVATING IF IT IS THE DWELLING OF THE

OFFENDED PARTY. IT SHOULD ALSO NOT BE THE DWELLING OF THE
OFFENDER. IF THE DWELLING IS BOTH OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND THE
OFFENDER, DWELLING IS NOT AGGRAVATING.
PARAGRAPH 4 ARTICLE 14

(1) That the act be committed with

abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
REQUISITES FOR ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE:

1. That the offended party had TRUSTED the offender;

2. That the offender ABUSED such trust by committing a

crime against the offended party; and

3. That the abuse of confidence FACILITATED the

commission of the crime.

REQUISITES FOR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS:

1. That the offended party had TRUSTED the offender;

2. That the offender ABUSED such trust by committing a

crime against the offended party; and

3. That the act be committed with obvious

UNGRATEFULNESS.
(People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583, 594)

A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill his sweetheart,

invited her to a ride in the country. The girl, unsuspecting of his plans,
went with him. While they were in the car, the jealous lover stabbed
her. It was held that thisaggravating circumstance was present.
NOTES:

A) THE CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED

PARTY MUST BE IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL.

B) IT IS NOT A MERE BETRAYAL OF TRUST, SINCE THE OFFENDED

PARTY MUST BE THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY REPOSED HIS CONFIDENCE
IN THE OFFENDER.
THANK YOU!