CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
position. It was proven in trial. How should the court
ADDITIONAL TRANS
ARTICLE 14 OF THE RPC
FIRST AGGRAVATING
Q: X a police office, arrested a woman for allegedly
selling drugs. After investigation, the woman was put
behind bars. The very same night, X, removed the
woman from the detention cell and brought her in his
office and then had carnal knowledge with the woman
through force, violence, and intimidation. X was then
charged with the crime of rape.
In the information, it was alleged that the act of rape was
committed by taking advantage of his public position.
How should it be considered by the court?
A: it should be considered as qualifying aggravating
circumstance. Under Art 266-B, as amended by 8353, if
the act of rape was committed by a public officer or
prisoner custodian by taking advantage of his public
position, the penalty is death. Therefore, it is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance for:
1. it change the nature of the offense from simple
rape to qualified rape, and
2. increased the penalty from reclusion perpetua to
death penalty
Q: a notary public prepared and notarize a deed of
absolute sale, which in reality didn’t exist. He falsified the
said deed of absolute sale, and falsified the signature of
the parties. He was charged with falsification of public
document under Art 171, it was alleged that the crime
was committed that the notary public took advantage of
his public position in the commission of the crime. The
same was alleged and proven. How should the court
consider it?
A: it must be considered as an inherent aggravating
circumstance. It is simply absorbed, no longer
considered in the imposition of the penalty. Under Art
171, falsification of document by officer, employee,
notary public or ecclesiastical minister. The second
element is taking advantage of one’s public position in
the commission of the crime. It is an inherent element in
the commission. In fact without it, there is no crime of
falsification of document under Art 171, it will be under
Art 172.
Q: a police officer was in need of money. He saw a
cigarette seller, in the pretense of buying, he went near
the seller and ask for a cigarette. Eventually he didn’t
pay. Afterwards, he asked for an additional 50pesos
from the vendor while showing his gun to the vendor and
saying “gusto mo ba neto?”. The vendor then gave the
money.
The police officer was then charged with robbery through
force or intimidation by taking advantage of his public
1
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA
2021-2022
consider it?
A: the court should consider it as a special aggravating
circumstance. Although under art 14 (1), taking
advantage of While under Art. 14, taking advantage of
one’s public position in the commission of the crime is a
mere generic aggravating circumstance, under Art. 62 as
amended by RA 7659(heinous crime law), it is a special
aggravating circumstance because the law provides
that the maximum penalty should be the one imposed.
The moment the crime is committed by a public officer
and
the public officer took advantage of his public position to
commit the crime, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed.
EXCEPT, when it is inherent in the commission of the
crime
As a special aggravating circumstance, it cannot be
offset by any mitigating circumstance.
SECOND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
In the case of People v. Tiongson, the SC did not
appreciate that the said act was committed with
contempt or insult of persons in public authority for 2
reasons:
1. a police officer is not a public authority, but a mere
agent of persons in authority
2. it is the agent of the person in authority who was the
victim. It was not in his presence, but he was the victim.
Q: A, an incumbent mayor who is running for re-
election. He was at the market doing his campaign.
Afterwards he saw his 2 friends, Y and Z. They
talked with each other. Z then excused himself to
buy fruits. While buying the fruits, Z had a heated
argument with the vendor.
The mayor then went close to them to calm them.
Mayor then put his hand on the neck of Z and told
him to go somewhere else to keep the peace and
order of the market.
Z believed that Mayor was siding with the vendor. He
then saw a knife and stabbed the vendor. The
vendor was hit in the shoulder (a shallow wound).
Z is now charged with attempted homicide, and in
the information it was alleged that there was an
contempt/ insult to a public authority. Is the said
aggravating circumstance present in this case?
A: YES. There was an insult of public authority in the
commission of the crime.
First element: PRESENT. although at first, the Mayor
was there to campaign, at the time the Mayor went to
these 2 persons who were engaged in heated argument
4DCrimRevTrans
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
that will cause a commotion, the Mayor tried to pacify
them was already performing his public function. It is the
duty of a Mayor, barangay tanod, barangay chairman to
keep peace and order at every hour.
Second element: PRESENT. He is not the victim
Third element: PRESENT. Z knows him to be a public
authority.
Fourth element: PRESENT: the presence of the mayor
did not deter Z from committing the crime.
THIRD AGGRAVATING
Q: X was in need of money. He then saw a house that
has an open window, he decided to rob the house. He
was able to open the window further in order to enter. He
was caught by the owner of the house, Y. At that time X
was determined to shot the owner of the house.
They now engaged into grabbing of the gun, when it
suddenly accidentally fired. It hit the wife of Y and
eventually shot Y also.
X ransacked the house. Later on, X was charged with
robbery with homicide. In the information, it was alleged
that the killing happened in the dwelling of Y. is dwelling
an aggravating?
A: YES. It dwelling is only inherent on robbery on force
upon things, under Art 299. But dwelling is considered
as an aggravating circumstance with robbery through
force or intimidation under Art 294 which includes
complex crime of robbery with homicide, because this
does not need to be committed inside the dwelling of the
victim.
FOURTH AGGRAVATING
Element of obvious ungratefulness: apparent lack of
gratituted. It is evident
SIXTH AGGRAVATING
Element of night time
1. deliberately sought the cover of darkness
2. the purpose is to ensure the commission of the crime
or to ensure impunity or no one can recognize him as
the perpetrator of the crime
By a band
- there are four malefactors who acted in the
commission of the crime
2
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA
2021-2022
- they are co-principals or co-conspirators in
the commission of the crime because they acted
together to consummate the crime
Q: X was convicted for a crime and was placed
behind bar. He wanted to take revenge to the said
judge. He escaped prison and started to conduct
investigation about the judge. He found out that the
judge has a mistress, and goes to the mistress
house during Friday to Sunday at 8pm.
He planned on how to take his revenge. He then
waited near the house of the mistress. At 8pm, judge
arrived, X didn’t do anything.
X waited for the lights of the house to be totally off
before he kill the judge. So it was only at 11pm that
he was able to enter the house?
a. is dwelling present?
b. is the aggravating circumstance of night time
present?
c. is the disregard of rank present?
d. is contempt or insult of public authority present?
A:
a. Dwelling is present. Ownership is immaterial. During
Friday evening to Sunday, the house of the mistress is
used by the judge for his rest or comfort, in that period of
time, that is considered as his place of dwelling.
b. Nighttime present. X saw the judge entering the house
of the mistress. At that particular moment he could have
killed the judge but he didn’t. he waited for the cover of
darkness before he executed the crime.
c. Disregard of rank is NOT present. The crime
committed is qualified direct assault with murder. The
disregard of rank is inherent. The crime was qualified
direct assault with murder because the judge is a public
authority, although at the time of the assault he was in
his private capacity, the reason for the assault was judge
previous performance of his official duty.
d. Insult of public authority is NOT present. Insult of
public authority is considered when the crime was
committed in the presence of the public authority who
was in discharge of his duty. But in this case, it was the
public authority who was the victim of the crime.
Q: A,B , C, D and E wants to kill W. they waited for W
along Ayala avenue. When W was walking, at about
11pm, A,B,C,D and E suddenly appeared and
simultaneously stabbed him to death.
Are the following aggravating circumstances
present?
a. nighttime
4DCrimRevTrans
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
b. uninhabited place
c. by a band
A:
a. Nighttime is NOT present. Although the crime was
committed at 11pm, there was no showing that they
sought cover of darkness, place or crime happening at
ayala ave. It was everyone’s knowledge that it is lighted
even at 11pm.
b. Uninhabited place is NOT present. W can receive any
help for it being a public place.
c. By a band is present. There are 5 armed malefactors
who acted together and simultaneously stabbing W.
7th aggravating
2 instances where it will be considered as qualifying
aggravating if the crime is :
1. killing – it becomes murder
2. theft – from simple theft to qualified theft under
art 310
9th
How do you prove recidivism?
- You only have to present a certified true copy of
first conviction by final judgement.
In recidivism, it requires 2 conviction:
1. on the first conviction by final judgment
2. on the second conviction is the conviction on the said
new crime for which he is in new trial.
It is in this second conviction that recidivism that the
judge will consider recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance.
It being a mere generic aggravating circumstance, then it
can be OFF SET by a mitigating circumstance.
Q: X was convicted of serious physical injury. It
became final and executory. He was able to serve
his sentence.
After 20 years, X engaged into a fight because
someone was trying to molest his granddaughter. In
the course of the fight, he killed the said person. He
is now being charged for homicide and was found
guilty.
For the imposition of penalty for the crime of
homicide, can the judge consider the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism?
A: YES
3
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA
2021-2022
First, he was on trial for homicide
Second, at the time of the said trial he has been
previously convicted of serious physical injury
Third, homicide and serious physical injury are both
embraced under title 8 as crimes against persons.
Lastly, he was convicted of the new crime of homicide.
Therefore, the judge may consider recidivism for the
imposition of penalty.
In so far for recidivism, the law does not provide a
prescriptive period. The law does not require any lapse
of time between the first crime and the second crime.
The only requisite provided by law is that both crimes
are embraced by the same title.
Q: X was convicted for serious physical injury. Instead of
filing an appeal, he filed an application for probation
which was granted. So X is now released from prison
and under probation.
While X was on probation, he has a fight which resulted
to the death of his opponent. He is now being tried for
homicide. Judge found him guilty of homicide. In
imposing the penalty for homicide, should the judge
consider recidivism as an aggravating circumstance?
A:
First element, he on trial for one crime which is
homicide.
Second element, at the time of the trial, he has been
previously convicted by final judgment.
At the time of the said trial, he was convicted by final
judgment. Although he has filed an application for
probation, it is still considered as conviction by final
judgment. The moment X instead of filing an appeal, it
means he was already admitting to the commission of
the crime. He is no longer questioning his conviction;
hence the conviction became final and executory.
Third element, both serious physical injury and homicide
are embraced under the same title of the code
Fourth element, he was convicted for the second
offense.
Therefore, in imposing the penalty for homicide, the
judge can consider the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism.
Q: X was convicted for conspiracy to commit
rebellion. He was behind bars. When he was serving
his sentence, the President issued an amnesty
proclamation. He availed this amnesty which was
granted.
4DCrimRevTrans
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
After being released he was then charged with
conspiracy to commit sedition. The judge found him
guilty. Can the judge consider recidivism?
A: NO.
First element, he was on trial for conspiracy to commit
sedition.
Third element, both the crimes fall under the same title
of the code
Fourth element, he was convicted for the second crime
to commit sedition.
Second element is absent. The second element requires
that at the time he was being tried for the second offense
that there was a prior conviction by final judgment of
another crime.
Although he was previously convicted, there was a grant
of amnesty. The amnesty obliterates the previous crime.
It is as if no crime has been committed. Therefore, X
was not previously convicted by final judgment.
10th aggra
Q: X has been convicted of the crime of serious physical
injuries. Since the penalty imposed by the court was only
a max of 4 yrs. X applied for probation.
He is now released. Months later, his family was in need
of money. He went to the MRT, he used an icepick and
ask for the wallet. He was arrested. He is now charged
with the crime of robbery. The court found him guilty for
simple robbery.
Can the judge consider reiteracion?
A:
First element, he was on trial for a crime which is
robbery.
Second element is absent, at the time of the said trial.
He hasn’t served completely served his sentence
because of the grant of the probation. Although he
served a portion of the sentence, it was not complete.
In the case of Moreno v. Comelec, the effect of probation
is to suspend the effect of the sentence. If the convict is
placed under probation, then it means he hasn’t served
his sentence.
the 3rd type of habituality. Habitual delinquency.
Elements of habitual delinquency
1. the crimes are Serious or Less Serious Physical
Injuries, Estafa, Theft, Robbery, Falsification (FRETSeL)
2. at least 3 convictions
4
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA
2021-2022
3. each conviction must be made within 10 years from
the date of release or date of conviction
- This is an EXTRA-ORDINARY aggravating
circumstance
o Bc the effect is to impose an additional
penalty aside from the penalty of the
crime he has committed. Therefore,
there are 2 penalties to be imposed
which are:
 Penalty for the crime committed
 For being a habitual delinquent
o Limitation for penalty of habitual
delinquency: Provided that if you add
the 2 penalties it must not exceed 30 yrs
Q: X was charged and convicted for simple robbery. He
served his sentence.
Within 2 months after his release, X was charged and
convicted for theft. He served his sentence.
After 6 months from release, he again committed
robbery. He was convicted. He then served his
sentence.
Within a period of 2 years, he committed robbery. He is
now on trial for the crime of robbery. The judge found
him guilty. For the purposes of imposing a penalty,
should the judge consider both recidivism and habitual
delinquency?
A: YES. People v. Melendrez. Both can be considered
by the court since they have different effect on the
imposition of the penalty. The fact that X is a recidivist,
then the maximum penalty for robbery is to be imposed,
if it was not offset by any mitigating circumstance.
The fact that X is a habitual delinquent means aside
from the penalty of robbery, an ADDITIONAL penalty will
be imposed on him.
X is a recidivist.
1st element: He is on trial for robbery.
2nd element: At the time of the trial, he was previously
convicted of another crime which is theft
3rd element: both theft and robbery are under the same
title.
4th element: he was convicted for the current offense,
which is robbery.
X is a habitual delinquent
1st element: X was found guilty a third time for robbery
4th kind of habituality: Quasi-recidivism
- This is a special aggravating circumstance
4DCrimRevTrans
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
- The first crime for which the offender was
convicted by final judgement may be ANY
CRIME, it can be felony under the RPC or an
offense under SPL.
- The second crime which he committed while
serving his sentence or before serving his
sentence is a felony (violation under the RPC)
Q: X was in bilibid to serve his sentence. He
suddenly felt sick and was in need of help. When the
guards carried him from his bed, they found pockets
of sachet of drugs. He is now on trial for possession
of dangerous drugs. He was then found guilty. For
the imposition of the penalty. Should the judge
consider quasi recidivism?
A: NO. Although he committed this crime while he was
serving his sentence, the second crime was an offense.
Q: X was convicted of robbery, he served his
sentence. He was in bilibid, he was recruited by one
gang. In the prison, there was a riot, and X stabbed a
member of the other gang. The victim died. He was
charged and convicted for homicide. Can the judge
consider quasi- recidivism?
A: YES, because the second offense is a felony. Hence,
the judge must impose the maximum period of reclusion
temporal.
13th aggra
Evident premeditation is the offender’s adherence to the
crime. It means there is a deliberate planning before the
execution of the crime. The offender deliberately
considered and planned the commission of the crime
before he executed it.
1st element: the time the accused decided to commit the
crime.
- This must be shown before the court with
evidence
- “kelan niya ba plinanong pataying ang biktima”
2nd element: An act manifestly indicating that the culprit
has clung to his determination;
- Was there any overt act that shows that he clung
to his determination?
3rd element: Sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his acts.
- Was there sufficient time for him to reflect upon?
If the act is killing a person, evident premeditation is a
qualifying aggravating circumstance
If crimes against property, evident premeditation is
inherent. So simply absorbed.
5
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA
2021-2022
Q: in a crowd of people, X belittled Y. Y was so hurt,
so he told X “the next time I see you, I will get even
with you, more than what you did to me today,”
Y sharpened his bolo. Since that time he was waiting
for the best opportunity to be even with X. After a
week, he saw X opening his gate. Y then immediately
took his bolo and slowly and surreptitiously when
behind X then hacked him.
Y is now being prosecuted for the crime of murder.
In the information, it was alleged that the qualifying
aggravating circumstance of treachery and evident
premeditation are present. Both were proven at the
trial. How will you consider these circumstances?
A: convict him with murder qualified by treachery.
Evident premeditation will be a generic aggravating
circumstance.
Evident premeditation is never absorbed by treachery. It
is considered as a generic aggravating.
For murder, you only need one qualifying circumstance.
If treachery is present, then treachery is always the
qualifying circumstance.
The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death.
Since there is a generic circumstance of evident
premeditation, the effect is to impose the greater penalty
which is death.
But since death cannot be imposed due to RA 9349
which prohibits the imposition of death penalty. So you
have to reduce it to reclusion perpetua BUT “without
benefit of parole”
16th treachery
- People v. Feliciano: If treachery and abuse of
superior strength was alleged in the information
and proven in trial. Treachery absorbs superior
strength. Hence, abuse of superior strength has
no more effect on the imposition of the penalty
RULINGS:
SC: even if the victim was able to retaliate by way of
reflexes. Treachery still attends the crime because at the
inception of the attack, he was not able to set up a
defense
SC: there can be no treachery if it was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. There must be a witness who
saw how the attack happened in order to prove that the
attack employed by the offender rendered the victim
defenseless
Matibag case: there can be treachery even if there was a
frontal attack. In this case, Duhan was on his face on the
4DCrimRevTrans
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2021-2022
floor which rendered him defenseless at the time he was
shot.

SC: When the crime is robbery with homicide, treachery

is only considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance because the “robbery with homicide” is a
crime against property. It won’t be considered as a
qualifying circumstance.

6
PROSEC. VICTORIA GARCIA 4DCrimRevTrans