ART XIV, PAR 3

The act be committed:

1. with insult or in disregard of the respect due to offended party on account of his:
(a) Rank
- There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended
party.
- Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult required.
(b) Age
- Applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as old age.
- Deliberate intent to offend or insult required.
- Not aggravating in robbery with homicide
(c) Sex
- Not aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended
to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect her
womanhood.
- Absorbed in treachery.

2. that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.

BASIS OF THESE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

- based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstances of the
offended party and the place of the commission of the crime.

DISREGARD OF RANK, SEX AND AGE

NOTE: this circumstance may be taken into account ONLY IN CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR
HONOR.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V PAGAL, SCRA 570 [1977]

FACTS:
That on or about December 26, 1969, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, and by means of violence, take away from
the person of one Gau Guan, cash amounting Pl,281.00. Philippine currency, to the damage and
prejudice of the said Gau Guan in the said sum of Pl,281.00; that on the occasion of the said
robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said amount of
P1,281.00, the herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of their superior strength,
treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the said Gau Guan, by then and
there stabbing him with an icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts of his
body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of
his death thereafter.

QUESTION: May the aggravating circumstance of insult or disregard of rank, sex or age be
appreciated in the crime of robbery with homicide?

ANSWER:
NO. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of
the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account
only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some
insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating
circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against
property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of robbery, the latter being the
main purpose and object of the criminal.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V GERVACIO, 24 SCRA 960 [1968]

FACTS:
In the afternoon of September 2, 1963, four dead persons — all with gaping wounds in their
heads and in advanced state of decomposition — were discovered inside a neatly closed house
on Palale Street, Quezon City. It was a ghastly sight; three of the cadavers — later identified to be
those of Dr. Vicente K. Obando, his wife, Esperanza Umali Obando, and the doctor's mother-in-
law, Mrs. Candida Umali — were found lying side by side inside the bathroom near the master's
clinic, while the other — subsequently ascertained to be that of Maria Magpantay, an old maid
in the household — was seen inside the toilet near the garage of the said residence. Aside from
a sledge hammer, the Quezon City Police found in the adjoining lot the following day,
information was also gathered that aside from the victims, two other persons were residing in
the same house with the Obandos — a houseboy named Simplicio Gervacio, and a little girl,
Luzviminda Simon Obando, who had been reared by the Obando spouses as foster parents.
Luckily, it later developed that the life of the little girl had been spared by the perpetrators of the
crime, and her rescue by the long arm of the law from the hands of her "captors" on the far
away Island of Biliran in the province of Leyte, soon unraveled the mystery that threatened to
bury this atrocious and horrible crime into oblivion. Tried for robbery and homicide, five
aggravating circumstances were considered against accused Simplicio Gervacio, namely: (1)
treachery, (2) evident premeditation, (3) evident due the offended parties on account of their age
and sex, (4) that the act was committed with abuse of confidence, and (5) that advantage was
taken of superior strength.

QUESTION: Can they all be considered against the accused in arriving at the proper imposable
penalty?

ANSWER:
- The Supreme Court agree with the contention of counsel de officio, and concurred in by the
Solicitor General, that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of age and sex, and advantage
taken of superior strength, should not have been considered independently of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery which had already been considered.
- Gervacio shall have in his favor only two mitigating circumstances which are not enough to
compensate the three aggravating circumstances considered against him. And the presence of
one aggravating circumstance after such compensation, would still legally sustain the heavier
penalty imposed on him by the trial court.

DISREGARD OF SEX

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V. BRAÑA, 30 SCRA 307 [1969]

FACTS:
About 7:30 in the morning of 6 January 1967, 19-year old Corazon Tabaño was found by her
mother in their house at 178 Magdalo St., La Paz, Iloilo City, bleeding from several stab wounds.
Rushed to the St. Paul's Hospital, she expired a few minutes after arrival. Freddie Braña, who
used to but had already ceased living in the house of the victim and her family, was found guilty
of murder for killing Tabaño, aggravated by the circumstances of commission in the dwelling of
the victim and of insult or disregard of respect due the offended party on account of her sex.
Braña does not deny that on the said morning, he inflicted multiple stab wounds on Tabaña by
means of the knife, from which the latter succumbed on the same day. In holding that the
slaying was deliberate and premeditated, the trial relied on the sole testimony of the
prosecution witness Rafaela Fortaleza that on two occasions, the last one being on the day
before killing, she was informed by the victim that the accused had threatened to kill her
(Corazon) should she accept other suitors.

QUESTION: Since the sex of the victim has been considered in the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superiority, can disregard of sex still be appreciated as separate aggravating
circumstance?

ANSWER:
NO. The fact that the victim is a woman does not per se constitute disregard of the respect due
her sex that would aggravate a crime. For this circumstance to be properly considered, it must be
proved that in the commission of the crime the accused had particularly intended to cast insult
or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V. DAYUG & BANNAISAN, 49 Phil. 423 [1926]

FACTS:
The Igorrotes Kalingas and Gumpad were previously accused, convicted, and sentenced to life
imprisonment for having killed the family of another Kalinga Igorrote named Suguian. Dayug and
Bannaisan are relatives of Suguian and wanted to revenge the death of the family of their
relative. Having been informed that Kalinga Daupan, a relative of Abauag and Gumpad, and
Kalinga Panabang had gone to the barrio of Laya, and Igorrote woman named Banayan told them
to intercept the travelers on the road. One day, the accused (D & B) started out ahead of them
and upon arriving at the barrio of Pakik waited in ambush. At about noon Daupan and Panabang
passed by them. The accused followed them at a distance of about 80 yards, trying not to be
seen. At Belen, an uninhabited place, they overtook them, Dayug attacking Panabang and
Bannaisan attacking Daupan, each using his respective bolo. Dayug first wounded Panabang on
the right shoulder and later in the back. Panabang started to run away, Dayug pursuing him and
when he overtook him, Panabang faced him. Dayug then gave him a third blow with the bolo
which penetrated the abdomen. As Panabang again attempted to run away, Dayug gave him the
fourth blow which struck his right leg above the knee, causing him to fall face downward on the
ground when he again stabbed him in the buttock. Panabang died instantly. After his death
Dayug searched his clothes and found P18, consisting of 10 silver pesos, 4 one-peso bills and 2
two-peso bills, in a purse wrapped ina handkerchief. He also found five silver rings on the person
Panabang. While Dayug was engaged with Panabang, Bannaisan pursued the Igorrote Daupan,
inflicting a wound in her abdomen, another in the right lumbar region, another across the left
cheek and another in the right buttock. The accused divided the money and the rings, Bannaisan
taking the P10 in silver and three rings and Dayug the rest.

QUESTION: Since one of the victims was a woman (Daupan), can disregard of the respect due on
account of her sex be appreciated?

ANSWER:
YES. The SC ruled that the disregard of sex in respect to accused Bannaisan is one of the
aggravating circumstance in this case. The accused who, upon knowing the death of their
relative, and not being able to make revenge on the killers, because of their imprisonment,
selected and killed a female relative of the killers in retaliation. Hence, they committed the act
with this aggravating circumstance.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V. BALONDO, 30 SCRA 155 [1969]

FACTS:
Diego Balondo, that on Sept. 29, 1966, at about 6:00 o'clock a.m., he was in his farm in the
barrio of Balacson, Kawayan, Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte when he saw Gloria Bulasa going to
the direction of the nipa grooves of the Ayono Asilo, behind the Aglipayan church; that upon
seeing her, he followed behind surreptitiously; that upon seeing her cutting the banana leaves
he told her, "why, you are here again to cut the banana leaves?", that the late Gloria Bulasa
answered, 'it is none of your business for it's the property of the government'; he got furious and
immediately grabbed her by his left hand strangled her by the neck and pushed her violently to
the ground face downward; he firmly held her left arm and neck; rode on her back and pinned
her down with his knees and then continuously lifting her head and smashed her face against
the mud; that he choked and buried her face in the mud for about an hour until she died. And
that when she was already dead, he lifted her from the mud and laid her flat on her back, and
then he held her by the feet, dragged her to a place from where he killed her, at thirty brazas. He
covered the body with nipa leaves to keep her from the sunlight. The deceased was carrying a
knife for cutting the banana leaves, and she was a niece of the accused from a second degree
cousin; He sliced and took the flesh from the thighs, legs and shoulder by the use of the knife of
Gloria Bulasa because his bolo was dull, after which he threw the knife away. Then he cut away
also the feet. He intended to slice all the flesh of the cadaver but he was caught by the darkness
of the night. He put the sliced flesh with a piece of rattan, tied it and brought it to his farm. Upon
reaching his farm, he started to build a fire and barbecued the sliced pieces of human flesh
(roasted it) and he ate the barbecued pieces of human flesh and used it as a viand for the
roasted banana fruits. He killed Gloria Bulasa first to taste the human flesh if its good, but he
found that taste of the human flesh was bitter and poignant like a gall bladder. After doing all
those atrocious act, he went home at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening. Balondo was
apprehended after the discovery of the victim’s dead body.

QUESTION: Can disregard of sex be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance against the

accused?

ANSWER:
YES. The Supreme Court agree with the trial court that the commission of the crime by the
defendant was attended by the aggravating circumstance - disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of her sex.
 DISREGARD OF RANK

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V BENITO, 62 SCRA 351 [1975]

FACTS:
It is claimed that Pedro Moncayo Jr., Assistant Chief of the Personnel Transaction of the CSC,
made a remark, at 11:00 A.M., in the presence of Alberto Benito, clerk in the CSC, that the
Commission is hangout of thieves. Benito felt alluded to because he was facing criminal
administrative charges on several counts involving his honesty and integrity. In fact, a decision in
an administrative case against Benito, ordering his dismissal from service, has appealed by the
accused, albeit it was by its terms immediately executory. When Moncayo, drove his car out of
the Civil Service Commission at about 5:30 P.M. of December 12, 1969, he was followed by the
accused, and when the car was about to turn at the intersection of P. Paredes and Lepanto
Streets, Manila, the accused shot him eight times with a .22 caliber revolver, causing the
Moncayo’s death. Benito, although having all the opportunity to escape, did not so but instead
called up the Manila Police Department. When the policeman went to the scene of the crime to
investigate, he voluntarily approached them and, without revealing his identity, told them that
he would help in connection with the case as he knew the suspect as well as the latter’s motive.
In other words, Benito did not tell the police that he was the assassin. When brought to the
police station immediately thereafter as a positive witness (Benito was with the police
investigators all that time), he confided to the investigators that he was “voluntarily
surrendering” and “also surrendering the fatal gun used in the shooting of the victim.

QUESTION: Can Benito claim that disregard of rank of the victim, as an aggravating circumstance,
should not be appreciated against him considering that he was no longer connected with the
CSC, at the time of the murder, as the decision in the administrative case against him ordering
his dismissal from service became effective, albeit records shows that he appealed the same and
was completely exonerated on such appeal?

ANSWER:
NO. The generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank considered by the lower Court
against the accused is being assailed on the ground that at the time of the commission of the
murder, the accused was no longer connected with the Civil Service Commission as the decision
in the administrative case against him ordering his dismissal from the service became effective
February 16, 1966.
- There is no question, that accused was a clerk in the Civil Service Commission and the victim was
Assistant Chief of the Personnel Transaction of that Office. When the accused saw and talked
with the deceased regarding the former's administrative case that proved to be the motive for
the murder by his own admission, accused made it very obvious that he recognized the
deceased as his superior officer. The mere fact that the dismissal of the accused from office was
made immediately executory was of no moment since he appealed that decision and the case
 was still pending and, by his own allegation, he was later completely exonerated by the Civil
Service Board of Appeals in its decision of February 17, 1971.
- It may be true that this aggravating circumstance was considered against the accused even if it
was not alleged in the information, but this is a generic aggravating circumstance, and not a
qualifying circumstance that would change the nature or affect the gravity of the crime
committed, but one which is capable of being proven and taken into consideration even if it was
not alleged in the information. The lower Court in considering this generic aggravating
circumstance against the accused did not violate his constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him for murder. Hence, this aggravating
circumstance was correctly considered against Benito.

NOTE: The present rule will not allow appreciation of circumstance or of any circumstance
whether generic or qualifying if not alleged in the information. The above case was true
before the year 2000. In the year 2000, a provision on the 2000 rules on Criminal Procedure
require that generic as well as qualifying circumstances that are aggravating should be
alleged in the information. They cannot otherwise be considered against the accused even if
proven in the trial or even if admitted by the accused if there is no allegation regarding the
information.
Previously, if a circumstance which is generic in character is not alleged in the information it
can still be considered if proven in the course of the trial or if admitted by the accused and this
rule is no longer true starting the year 2000.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V SAYLAN, 130 SCRA 159 [1984]

FACTS:

Eutropia Agno, a married woman, was a classroom teacher of the Malinao Elementary School. One
afternoon, she went to the public market to buy foodstuffs for her family and thereafter, she proceeded
to the store of her mother to fetch her five-year old daughter Nilsonita. On their way home, Eutropia and
Nilsonita boarded a passenger jeepney and while inside the vehicle she noticed that the other
passengers were Rudy Gonzales, a grade I pupil of the school, the accused, Rafael Saylan, and a couple
whom she did not know. The jeepney went only as far as Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio
Malinao was not passable by vehicles. It was almost 6:30 o'clock in the evening when the jeepney
arrived at the Malinas citrus farm and so all the passengers alighted and had to walk all the way to Barrio
Malinao which was about three and a half kilometers away. After walking some distance and upon
reaching a junction, the couple separated from the group and took the road leading to their house while
Agno's group took the opposite road. Saylan, however, joined the group of Agno and when they reached
the place where the road was plain, accused who was then walking side by side with Agno suddenly
pulled out a dagger about eight inches long and pointing it at the latter said, "Do not shout, Nang, I will
kill you!" At this juncture, Saylan placed his right arm around the neck of Agno with the dagger pointed
at her left breast, after which he dragged Agno at some distance. When they reached the junction of the
trail for men and a trail for carabaos, he ordered everybody to stop and told the children (Nilsonita and
Rudy Gonzales) to stay behind and threatened to kill them if they persisted in following them. Thereafter,
Saylan again dragged Agno by her hand and brought her towards a creek near a coconut tree which was
about five meters away from where the children were, where Saylan succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Agno five times.

QUESTION: Can disregard of rank be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering simply that
the victim is a school teacher, a fact known to the accused, even if there has been no showing of a
deliberate intent to offend or insult rank of the victim?

ANSWER:
Although not alleged in the complaint, the trial court stated that the offense was aggravated by
disregard of rank because it was a fact knowm to the appellant that Mrs. Agno was a school teacher.
The appellant claims that this circumstance cannot be assigned to him because there was no
deliberate intent to offend or insult the rank of Mrs. Agno. The Solicitor General agrees with the
appellant for the same reason.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: PEOPLE V. LANSETA, 95 SCRA 166 [1980]

FACTS:

One early morning, Rolando Javier arrived at the "karinderia" owned and operated by witness Asuncion
Tura which was located at the Soriano Market, Paco, Manila, and ordered food. Asuncion's sister, Rosalia
Tura served the appellant. Aside from appellant there were many other customers eating at the
"karinderia". After appellant had finished eating and while he remained seated at the "karinderia",
witness Asuncion Tura noticed that a man, who turned out to be the victim, Pat. Surilla approached the
appellant and introduced himself as a detective to appellant. Witness Asuncion Tura saw that appellant
stood up when accosted by the detective after which appellant and the detective walked away from the
store. When Rolando Javier and the detective had walked about ten (10) meters away from the store,
witness Asuncion Tura heard two shots and somebody shouting for help. When she turned her face
towards that direction, she saw Javier sitting astride the detective and stabbing the latter many times.
The detective was then having flat on his stomach. After Javier had delivered many stab blows, witness
Asuncion Tura saw him go towards the toilet, holding a gun in his left hand and a hunting knife in his
right hand.

QUESTION: Considering that the victim was a police officer, who introduced himself to the accused as a
detective prior to the stabbing incident, can disregard of rank be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in this case?

ANSWER:

YES. The circumstance "disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" under Art.
14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, present in this case. The act of appellant in attacking the
victim, an agent of a person in authority, while the latter was in the performance of official duty, is
actually constitutive of Direct Assault, or atentado under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. That is
characterized by the spirit of aggression directed against the authorities or their agents, hence, the
circumstance of "disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" may be considered
inherent therein.