Article 13. Mitigating circumstances.

- The following are mitigating circumstances;

Kinds of Mitigating

 Ordinary- minimum period (general rule). Not applicable to reclusion perpetua as they do not
have a period. They are indivisible penalties with no minimum or maximum period

 Privilege- reduction of 1 or 2 degrees. Applied with divisible or indivisible penalties.

Ex: Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify
or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

Explanation: Some elements of the justifying circumstance are not present. For example is self-
defense, when unlawful aggression is present but other elements are not, it falls under
mitigating. If the majority are present, it's called privilege mitigating but if only one is present, it's
called ordinary mitigating.

2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. (
above. 15 below 18 acting with discernment)

Explanation: It constitutes as privilege mitigating circumstance

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Explanation: The facts proven show a notable and evident disproportion between the means to
execute the act and the consequence

4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act. (No interval of time bet provocation and commission)

Explanation: Hinamon nung offended party kaya may mitigating pag nasaksak mo

5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees.

Explanation: There is a proximate time between grave offense and the commission of a crime.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced

passion or obfuscation.

Explanation: It must rise from a lawful sentiment or legitimate feeling ( Nagselos yung asawa)

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
Example: Not yet arrested and confessed prior to the presentation of the evidence for prosecution in
an open court

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow
beings.

Example: Not mitigating in the crime of rape and crimes against chastity and crime against property

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those
above mentioned.

Explanation: Over 60 years old with a failing sight similar to over 70 years old, outraged feeling of
creditors similar to passion, the impulse of jealousy similar to passion or obfuscation, voluntary
restitution of stolen property is analogous to voluntary surrender, extreme poverty and necessity
similar to incomplete of justification based on the state of necessity.

Chapter Four
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

( Applicable to divisible penalities)

Offsetting can done between generic aggravating and ordinary mitigating

Kinds of Aggravating

1. Generic
2. Specific
3. Qualifying- changes the nature of crime
4. Inherent- element of the crime
5. Special Complex Crime- ca

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

Explanation: Did the offender use his public position to commit the crime? Is it generic or inherent?
In the case of malversation and bribery, it is inherent aggravating

2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.

Explanation: Committed in the presence of the public authority and Not directed against the public
authority. If it is against the public authority, it’s already a direct assault

3. 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 that is be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
Explanation: Depending on the status of the person, disregarding the status of the person in
terms of rank, age, or sex. Also, the crime was committed inside the territory (dwelling) of
the victim.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

Explanation: It must be personal. There is a close relationship between the parties

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.

Explanation: If it is committed in the places mentioned and the presence of the people
mentioned.

6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a

band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors (at least 4 ) shall have acted together in
the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

Explanation: Facilitate and take advantage of Nighttime (beginning to finish), Uninhabited

places (opportunity to receive help), and Band (NUB)

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

Explanation: Taking advantage of the calamities mentioned

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.

Explanation: Re-laid on the presence of armed men to commit the crime

9. That the accused is a recidivist.

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
this Code.

Explanation: The same crimes are in the same title of the code like crimes against persons
or chastity or property.

10. That the offender has been previously punished by 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.

Explanation: Talks about Reiteracion where he’s convicted and served a sentence. Not
necessarily in the same title of the code like Recidivist.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

Explanation: Inducement of price, reward or promise

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive,
or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

Explanation: If murder, it's qualifying. The crime would be murder and not homicide. It’s not a
generic aggravating

13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.

Explanation: Pinagplanuhan or pinagisapan. The requisites are: Time decided to commit the
crime, Acts that he “ CLUNG” (time to meditate or reflect) to his determination to commit the
crime, Lapse of time between when he decided and when he executed the crime

14. That craft, fraud or disguise (conceal) be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken

the defense.

Explanation: Disproportionate of the strength of the victim and accused

16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). Memorize the Definition and
Requisites

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
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.

Explanation: Treachery is a qualifying aggravating in the crime of murder.

Requisites of Treachery:

 NO opportunity to defend himself (e.g.: Sudden and unexpected attack, no inkling

( no idea)
 Consciously and Deliberately adapted to ensure the execution ( to eliminate the
chance of self-defense on the part of the victim)- Killing a minor child is also
treachery

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act.

Explanation: Ignominy is moral suffering and can bring the victim to humiliation ( Killing the
husband in front of his spouse)

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry
when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
 Example: An inherent aggravating in the crime of robbery

19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
be broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or
by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

Example: Uses the motor vehicle in the execution of crim and not to escape

21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Example: Cruelty/ Physical suffering ( Before killing, the victim suffered a lot)

CASES ( AGGRAVATING)

PEOPLE VS GLINO

FACTS

At around 7:20 p.m., On November 15, 1998, Spouses Domingo and Virginia Boji hailed a
passenger jeepney and sat on the two remaining vacant seats on opposing rows of the jeepney.
Moments later, the woman seated next to Virginia alighted. Accused-appellant Conrado Glino
took her place. He was reeking of liquor. As the jeepney ran its normal route, Virginia noticed
accused-appellant inching closer to her. His head eventually found its way on Virginia's
shoulder. Irked, Virginia sought accused-appellant's attention and asked him to sit properly,
citing adequate space. Accused-appellant angrily replied, "Oh, kung ayaw mong may katabi,
bumaba ka, at magtaxi ka!" Virginia decided to ignore his snide remarks. After the heated verbal
tussle, accused-appellant and Baloes appeared to have calmed down, confining themselves to
whispering to one another.

When the jeepney approached Casimiro Village, Baloes turned to the driver and told him that he
and Glino were about to alight. As the jeepney ground to a halt, Baloes unexpectedly drew an
improvised knife and stabbed Domingo in the chest. Accused-appellant then unfolded a 29-inch
Batangas knife and joined Baloes in stabbing Domingo. Surprised and shocked at the sudden
attack, Domingo failed to offer any form of resistance to the duo's vicious assault. Virginia tried
vainly to shield Domingo from his assailants. She tightly embraced Domingo. Virginia's efforts,
however, all went for naught as accused- appellant Glino and Baloes were unrelenting. When the
senseless assault ceased, Virginia found herself bloodied from incised wounds in her fingers.

ISSUE

1.Whether or not Glino must have a lower penalty because it was Baloes who stabbed Domingo
2.Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of homicide and attempted homicide only, not
murder and attempted murder, due to the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery

HELD

1. No. Even assuming, for the nonce, that it was Baloes who inflicted the fatal stab,
accused- appellant cannot escape culpability. There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to
commit it. Proof that accused acted in concert, each of them doing his part to fulfill the
common design to kill the victim will suffice to support a conviction. In conspiracy, it
matters not who among the accused actually killed the victim. The act of one is the act of
all; hence, it is not necessary that all the participants deliver the fatal blow. Tersely put,
each of the accused will be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. The acts of
Glino and Baloes before, during and after the killing of Domingo are indicative of a joint
purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiment.

2. No. Treachery or alevosia’s presence is incontrovertible. The essence of this qualifying

circumstance is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself. The attack was executed
in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. Concededly,
Domingo was caught unaware that an attack was forthcoming. Although he had a verbal
exchange with accused-appellant and Baloes, the assault was sudden, swift and
unexpected. All of the passengers inside the jeepney, including Domingo, thought all
along that the tension had ceased and that Glino and Baloes were about to alight.
PEOPLE VS. BALDOGO

FACTS

Baldogo and Bermas were inmates who were serving sentences in the Penal Colony of Palawan.
They were assigned as helpers of the Camacho family, who resides within the Penal Colony. In
the evening of Feb. 22, 1996, only siblings Jorge (14 y.o) and Julie (12 y.o.) were left in their
house together with the Baldogo and Bermas. While Julie was studying in her room, she heard a
loud sound so she got out of the room and went to the kitchen, where she found Jorge sprawled
on the floor, lying face down and bloodied. Julie saw Baldogo and Bermas standing over Jorge,
each of them armed with a bolo. She ran back to the sala but the two pursued her. Baldogo tied
her hands at her back with a torn t-shirt and placed a piece of cloth in her mouth toprevent her
from shouting for help from their neighbors. Baldogo dragged Julie outside the house and
towards the mountain.

The following day, Bermas separated from Baldogo and Julie, who continued their ascent to the
mountain. The two stayed in the mountains for a few days until Feb. 28, 1996, when
Baldogo left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself.

Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. He contends that while he was preparing for
sleep, he was approached by Bermas, who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bermas
warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed. Baldogo maintained that he did not
intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty.

ISSUE

W/N the RTC erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation despite
the failure of the prosecution to prove it?

HELD

Yes. Although the SC agrees that Baldogo is guilty of murder, it does not agree with the ruling of
RTC that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation.

The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation must be proved with certainty
as the crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of
time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually
commits it.

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact that
Baldogo and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer
or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge
and kidnap Julie. The prosecution even failed to adduce any evidence of overt acts on the part of
Baldogo, nor did it present evidence as to when and how he and Bermas planned and prepared to
kill Jorge and kidnap Julie and to prove that the two felons since then clung to their
determination to commit the said crimes.
PEOPLE VS REAL

FACTS:

On March 17, 1978, at around 9:00 a.m., in the public market of Aroroy, Masbate, appellant and
Edgardo Corpus, both vendors, engaged in a heated argument over the right to use the market
table to display their fish. The two protagonists momentarily kept their peace but after awhile
Corpus raised his voice again and said something to appellant. When Corpus kept on walking to
and fro near the disputed fish table, appellant started to sharpen his bolo while murmuring to
himself. Once Corpus turned around with his back towards appellant, the latter hacked him on
the nape. The blow caused Corpus to collapse. He was rushed to a medical clinic. Appellant
admitted hacking Corpus but claimed that he did so out of humiliation and anger when the victim
threw his fish in the presence of so many people.

After trial, the court convicted appellant and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of P30,000.00 and costs. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court and the Solicitor General are in error when they held that the
attendant aggravating circumstance was reiteracion and not reincidencia

HELD

Yes. In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. In reiteracion,
the offender shall have been punished previously 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. Unlike
in reincidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in kind from that for which
he was previously tried and convicted. Appellant was previously convicted of ill-treatment by
deed (Revised Penal Code, Article 266, Title Eight) and grave threats (Revised Penal Code,
Article 282, Title Nine). He was convicted of homicide in the instant criminal case (Revised
Penal Code, Article 249, Title Eight). Inasmuch as homicide and ill- treatment by deed fall under
Title Eight, the aggravating circumstance to be appreciated against him is recidivism under
Article 14[g] rather than reiteracion under Article 14 (10) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no
reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses should not be embraced
in the same title of the Code. Appellant is therefore convicted of homicide, appreciating in his
favor the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, which is offset by the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism.
PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA

FACTS

At around past 5:00 a.m. of January 1, 2012, Amie Bafiaga (Bañaga) was selling tapsilog to a
group of persons playing cara y cruz at the comer of an alley in Summitville, Barangay Putatan,
Muntinlupa City. Thereupon, Bafiaga saw the accused-appellants and Valencia arrive and ask the
group if they know Enrico Enriquez, to which they answered in the negative. Thereupon, the
accused-appellants and Valencia went to the tricycle terminal, which was about 10 to 15 meters
away, where they saw Enrico. They then simultaneously attacked Enrico. Villanueva punched
Enrico on the face twice while Sayson hit the latter at the back of the head with a stone wrapped
in a t-shirt. Valencia then stabbed Enrico on the left side of his armpit twice. Enrico tried to fight
back to no avail.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) agreed on their conviction of the
crime of murder and appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength
considering that Enrico was all alone when he was attacked by the accused-appellants and
Valencia.

ISSUE

Whether or not the RTC and CA improperly appreciated the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength

HELD

Yes. While abuse of superior strength is one of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248
which qualifies the killing of the victim to murder, the prosecution failed to establish the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The fact that the accused-appellants and
Valencia, armed with a knife and a stone, ganged up on Enrico does not automatically merit the
conclusion that the latter's killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressor/s that is plainly and obviously advantageous to
the aggressor/s and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the
crime. Evidence must show that the assailants consciously sought the advantage, or that they had
the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to
purposely use force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength
of the parties. In the present case, the prosecution failed to present evidence to show a relative
disparity in age, size, strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them
armed with a knife, attacked the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with
a knife, is not per se indicative of abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers does
not indicate the presence of this circumstance. Nor can the circumstance be inferred solely from
the victim's possibly weaker physical constitution. In fact, what the evidence shows in this case
is a victim who is taller than the assailants and who was even able to deliver retaliatory fist blows
against the knife-wielder.
Accordingly, the Court is compelled to disregard the finding of the existence of abuse of superior
strength by the lower courts. The accused-appellants' guilt is, thus, limited to the crime of
homicide.
PEOPLE VS MACASPAC

FACTS

On July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Surban, Barcomo, Reyes, and
Jebulan on Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In the course of their drinking, an
argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to
the group: Hintayin nyo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo, and then left. After around three minutes
Macaspac returned wielding a kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan, saying: Ano?
Jebulan simply replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower
right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan.
The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. The
case was archived for more than 15 years because Macaspac had gone into hiding and remained
at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004. Upon his arraignment on August 31, 2004, he pleaded
not guilty to the foregoing information.

ISSUE:

Whether or not evident premeditation must be appreciated in the case instead of treachery

HELD

No. The requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when
the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused
had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of
time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of
his act. The first and second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established, but the
third requisite is absent in this case; such that by quickly returning to the group with the knife,
Macaspac let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his
criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime.
Accordingly, we cannot appreciate the attendance of evident premeditation in the killing.

Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either treachery or
evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan.