AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES

Atty. Dangerboy
 Concept
Are those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime serve to increase the
penalty without, however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law for
the offense.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Rules in appreciating aggravating circumstances
 In appreciating aggravating circumstances
certain rules must be observed. We need to
look at certain laws regarding this matter. First
of which is Art. 62 of RPC. It provides in part:
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime

specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a
crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account
for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance
inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from
the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of

the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who
had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein.
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or
which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any

aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such
a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
 Examples
1. In arson (Art. 320 to 326-B, RPC), the aggravating
circumstance of using fire is not an aggravating
circumstance because the said circumstance constitutes
crime in itself;

2. In the crimes of direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC) and

malversation (Art. 217, RPC), the special aggravating
circumstance of abuse of influence of a public official
under par. 1 of Art. 14 in relation to Art. 62 [5], RPC,
cannot be used in aggravating the said crimes since being
public official is an inherent element of the said crimes.
 Art. 63, RPC also provides:
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible
penalties. — In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
may have attended the commission of the deed.

xxx.
 As of the moment, there is only one single
and indivisible penalty, and that is the penalty
of reclusion perpertua. Meaning, if the act is
punishable by this penalty, according to Art.
63 of RPC, the said penalty must be imposed,
regardless of the attendant circumstances in
the commission of the act. Example nito ay
yang murder, parricide, serious illegal
detention, at marami pang iba.
Section 8 and 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court.
Corollarily, qualifying circumstances or generic aggravating
circumstances will not be appreciated by the Court unless
alleged in the Information. This requirement is now laid
down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, to wit:

SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or

information shall state the designation of the offense given by
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or
om1ss1ons complained of as constituting the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient
to enable a person of common understanding to
know what offense is being charged as well as its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for
the court to pronounce judgment.
Guelos, et al., vs. People, G.R. No. 177000,
June 19, 2017.
The constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him cannot be waived
for reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the
complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to
meet its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the
elements of the specific offense alleged to have been committed.
For an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, even if duly
proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the complaint
or information. In other words, the complaint must contain a
specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to
constitute the crime charged, the accused being presumed to have
no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
 QUERY

Paano kung di ma-raise ng defense Seeerrr

Dangerboy? Ano mangyari niyan sa accused
pagkaganyan?
 ANSWER
Ang sagot niyang tanong mo po ay nasa
Rules of Court din. Nasa Section 9 ng Rule 117
of the Rules of Court, in relation sa Section 3
ng nasabing Rule. Tara, check natin iyang
Sections 3 and 9, Rule 117 ng Rules of Court.
Under Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, an accused's failure to raise an objection to the
insufficiency or defect in the information would not amount to a
waiver of any objection based on said ground or irregularity.
Section 9 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
procedure reads:
Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor.-
The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to
quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
EXCEPT THOSE based in the grounds provided for in paragraphs
(a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.
Indeed, the foregoing provision provides that if an accused fails to
assert all the grounds available to him under Section 3 of Rule 117 in his
motion to quash, or if he, altogether, fails to file i motion a quash - any I
objection based on the ground or grounds he failed the raise through a
motion to quash shall be deemed waived, except the following, thus:
SEC. 3. Grounds. - x x x:
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged;
xxx
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; [and] x x x
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
The SC went on to say:

“[T]he real nature of the criminal charge is determined

not from the caption or preamble of the information
nor from the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions
of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the
complaint or information ... it is not the technical
name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the
information that determines the character of the
crime but the facts alleged in the body of the
Information.”
Simply put, the failure to specifically state the allegations in the
information which affects the liability of the accused, like
aggravating circumstances, will not be cured by accused’s failure
to raise objections on the said defect. The reason is that it
violates the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and character of accusations against him. That is an elementary
requirement of due process in criminal cases, sanctioned by no
less than the fundamental law itself. Corollary to that principle,
it follows that allegations in the complaint or information
controls the evidentiary matters that must be proven during
trial. You are not allowed to introduce and prove matters that
were not mentioned at the outset in the criminal charge against
the accused. Klaro???? Ahright!
Kinds of aggravating
circumstances
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances

Those that can generally apply to all felonies

under the Revised Penal Code (exemption
would be Art. 365, RPC).

In Art. 14, RPC, the circumstances in pars. 2, 3,

4, 5, 6 ,7 , 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except “by
means of motor vehicle”, are generic
aggravating circumstances.
2. Specific aggravating circumstances.

Those that apply to particular crimes only.

List of specific aggravating circumstance.

1. In the crime of violation of domicile under par. 2,

Art. 128, RPC, if the same committed in nighttime
or if the papers and other articles seized in the
illegal search and seizure were not returned
immediately after so demanded by the
owner/legal occupant of the dwelling;

2. Interruption of religious worship (in case there be

violence or threats under par. 2, Art. 132, RPC)
List of specific aggravating circumstance.

3. Direct assault (if weapon is used, or the

offender is himself/herself a public officer or
employee, or when the offender lays hands
upon a person in authority, Art. 148, RPC);

4. Grave threats (if made in writing, or

made thru a middleman, Art. 282, RPC);
List of specific aggravating circumstance

5. Slavery (if committed for the purpose of

assigning the offended party to some immoral
traffic, par. 2, Art. 272, RPC);

6. Robbery with violence against or intimidation

of persons (if committed in an uninhabited
place or band, use of loose/unlicensed firearm
on a street, road, or alley under Art. 295, RPC)
List of specific aggravating circumstance

7. Robbery with force upon things (if

committed in an uninhabited place and by
band, Art. 300, RPC).
3. Qualifying Aggravating circumstance

They change the nature of the crime when

it was originally planned or executed. It
“qualifies” the act or series of acts into a
different crime. See Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code (From a mere homicide into
murder).
4. Special Aggravating Circumstance.

Those which arise under special conditions to

increase the penalty of the offense, or to
render the same unaffected by ordinary
mitigating circumstances. Some special
aggravating circumstances in RPC are the
following:
1. Complex crime under Art. 48, RPC;
2. Objective/extraordinary error in personae
under Art. 49, RPC;
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency
under Art. 62 par. 5, RPC;
4. Quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC.
Special aggravating circumstances under
Special Penal Laws.
 Section 29, R.A. 10591
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm,
when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the
crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of
firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty
for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that
imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty
of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the
crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is
found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime
of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this
Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
 This part of Section 29 of R.A. 10591 is
considered a special aggravating circumstance

“Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose

firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is
lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for illegal
possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm
shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the
use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding
section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the
penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.”
 Section 25, R.A. 9165
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances
in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under
the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. –
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by an offender, and
the application of the penalty provided for in the
Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
According to Judge Marlou Campanilla, the said provision of
R.A. 9165 should have been labeled as “special aggravating
circumstance” rather than qualifying. This is not a qualifying
circumstance since the presence thereof will not require the
imposition of a different penalty (like that in case of
qualifying circumstances under Art. 248 that makes an act of
killing into murder instead of a mere homicide). Hence, the
only effect of this circumstance is that it will require the
application of the penalty provided or prescribed for the
crime committed, in its maximum period, regardless of the
presence of mitigating circumstance/s.
Generic aggravating Circumstances under Art.
14, RPC.
 Par. 1., That advantage be taken by the
offender of public position

Here, it is important that the accused used

his influence, prestige, and ascendancy in
committing a crime.
People vs. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304,
June 29, 1983.
The mere use of service firearm is not enough to
constitute taking advantage of public position. The
fact that accused made use of service firearms
which they were authorized to carry or possess by
reason of their positions, could not supply the
required connection between the office and the
crime. The crime in question, for example, could
have been committed by the defendants in the
same or like manner and fired with unlicensed
firearm
 Important considerations in the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of
public positions
1. It cannot be appreciated in offenses where taking
advantage of official position is an integral element of the
crime (Art. 62, RPC).

2. It is inherent in case of accessories under par. 3, Art. 19,

RPC (harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime by a public official using his influence
in the said escape);
3. There must be a deliberate intent to use the
influence. Without such circumstance, this
aggravating circumstance cannot be
appreciated against the accused;

4. By reason of the amendment by R.A. 7659 to

Art. 62 of RPC, par. 1 of RPC, Par. 1 of Art. 14,
RPC is now considered as a special aggravating
circumstance.
 Sec. 23 of R.A. 7659 provides:
Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby amended to read as
follows :
"Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in
conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable
by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his
public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of
mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed by any group who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the
commission of any crime.
xxx.
5. The basis of aggravation here is the greater
perversity of the offender as shown by the
means of personal circumstance of offender;
and by the means used to secure the
commission of the crime.
“There must be taking advantage of influence in
the commission of the wrongful act.”

The cases of U.S. vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452,

G.R. No. L-3873, September 18, 1912, and
U.S. vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October
18, 1907.
 U.S. vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, G.R. No. L-
3873, September 18, 1912.
The appellant shortly after entering upon his duties as councilman of the town of
Aparri, Province of Cagayan, gave, in the month of October, 1910, directions to
his subordinates that the death of all large animals must be reported by the
owners to him as councilman. These orders were conveyed to the people as
directed. Damaso Rabilas lost one carabao, Bonifacio Rante one, Santiago Rante
two, and Felipe Rante one (those of Santiago and Felipe were included in the
same complaint. The respective owners of these animals reported their death to
the appellant. Upon the receipt of this information the appellant informed these
owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for each animal, these fees to be turned
into the municipality by him. The owners, believing that the municipality had
provided for the payment of such fines, turned over to the appellant five pesos
for each animal that died. There was no provision whatever made by the
municipality or any other entity for the imposition of such fines. These facts
clearly constitute the crime of estafa as defined and penalized in paragraph 1,
article 535, in relation with paragraphs 1, article 534, Penal Code.
U.S. vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, G.R. No. L-
3873, September 18, 1912.
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed
him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been
councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to pay
these alleged fines. It was on account of his being councilman
that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and
it was for this reason that they made the payments. It is true that
he had no right to either impose or collect any fines whatsoever.
It is also true that a municipal councilman is not an official
designated by law to collect public fines. But these facts do not
destroy or disprove the important fact that the accused did by
taking advantage of his public position deceive and defraud the
injured parties out of the money which they paid him
U.S. vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, G.R. No. L-
3873, September 18, 1912.
This holding is not in conflict with the doctrine enunciated in
the case of United States vs. Casin (8 Phil. Rep., 589). In that
case Casin and Calleja, the offended party, lived in the same
house. Calleja gave Casin two pesos for the purpose of buying
her a cedula in order that she might institute a civil action in
the courts. Casin received the money promising to buy the
cedula. He neither purchased the cedula nor returned the
money but converted it to his own use. The fact that he was a
councilman did not have anything to do with his receiving the
two pesos. He acted purely in his private capacity.
Consequently, he did not in any manner take advantage of his
public position.
U.S. vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October
18, 1907.
At the time when Justo Dacuycuy was enjoying a vacation at the barrio of
Oangagan, town of Bacarra, in the early part of February, 1906, the 39
individuals whose names appear in the complaint, upon being informed through
the accused that cedulas had been received at the municipality, delivered to him
the sum of P39, asking him to obtain an equal number of cedulas, one for each
of them, so as to save them from having to travel the long distance to the town,
inasmuch as he had, as councilor, done the same thing in former years. The
accused, however, after receiving the money, limited himself to taking out 16
cedulas for as many taxpayers, and appropriated the balance of P23, and,
notwithstanding the repeated requests made by the 23 taxpayers who were still
without cedulas, he failed to either obtain them or return the money, telling
them not to worry, as they would eventually receive their cedulas. The term
fixed by law for the payment of the cedula tax elapsed, and the aforesaid 23
residents were obliged to take out their respective cedulas with a surcharge on
account of the delay, each of them paying the cost thereof.
U.S. vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October
18, 1907.
The collection of the cedula tax is not within the jurisdiction
of the councilor of a municipality nor does it form a part of
his official duties; therefore, if he appropriated or misapplied
any sum received from certain residents for the purchase of
cedulas, he should be punished as the author of the crime
of estafa, and it would not be proper to subject him to the
accessory penalty of article 399 of the Penal Code imposed
on public officers, because the accused received the
amount which he subsequently embezzled not as a
councilor but as a resident of the town, although he
thereby abused the confidence of his townsmen.
 In Torrida case, the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of influnce as public
official was appreciated against the accused
Torrida. However, this is not the case in
Dacuycuy. Why is that?
 ANSWER
In Torrida, the accused made it appear that the he has
the power (as councilman) to impose penalty against the
victims. This is not the case in Dacuycuy since the victims
knew or at least have the common understanding that
the accused was merely doing them favor in purchasing
their cedulas. The accused did not, in any manner,
misrepresented to the victims that their cedulas will be
transacted faster as he would be the one to process their
application. Neither the accused made it appear that it
was part of his power to issue such cedulas.
 RATIONALE:
The rule is that, it must appear that the accused
performing a public function in committing the
criminal act (at least, semblance of the act being
public in nature). If it is apparent at the outset
that there is no such circumstance. Meaning the
act complained of is not within his functions as a
public official, then the said act becomes private
in nature, and thus, par. 1 of Art. 14 cannot be
appreciated against the accused.
Par. 2, That the crime be committed in contempt
or with insult to the public authorities.

The basis of perversity of the offender as

shown by lack of respect for the public
authorities.
 Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in
the exercise of his functions;
2. That the public authority is not the
person against whom the crime is committed;
3. The offender knows him to be a public
authority; and
4. His presence has not prevented the
offender from committing the criminal act.
Whether or not the “teachers” are included in
the term “public authorities.”
 We have two contending views here. Boado
is of the view that teachers are included in the
term “public authorities”
Estrada, on the other hand, is of the opinion
that teachers (lawyers, barangay captain, etc.),
are not included in the term “public
authorities.”
The lecturer/professor is of the humble opinion that
Estrada’s view is more conducive for the following
reasons:

1.) The amendment brought about by R.A. 1978 on Article

152 of the Revised Penal Code, which has the effect of
including teachers (lawyers, barangay captain, etc.) in the
definition of “person in authority” is for the purpose of
embracing the said class of individuals to the definition of
Direct Assault under Art. 148 of the Revised Penal Code.
2.) The term used in Article 152 of RPC is “person in
authority”, whereas the term used under par. 2 of
Art. 14 of RPC is “public authority”. There is a fine
line between the two. The former are those
mentioned under Art. 152 of RPC for purpose of
defining the possible victims in the crime of Assault.
On the other hand, the term “public authorities”
refer to general classification of certain individuals,
whether person in authority or agent of the person
in authority who are in public service.
 Important consideration
Knowledge that a public authority is
essential. Lack of such knowledge indicates
lack of intention to insult the public authority.
Par., That the acts be committed:
1. With insult or disregard of the respect
due to offended party on account of his rank;
2. Disrespect due to age;
3. Disrespect of respect due to sex; and
4. That it be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
 Basis of aggravation
Greater perversity of the offender as shown
by personal circumstances of the offended
party and the place of the commission of the
crime.
 Important considerations
Rank.
The designation of title of distinction used to fix
the relative position of the offended party in
reference to others.

Age of the offended party.

May refer to old age or the tender age of the
victim.
 Important considerations
Sex of the offended party.
Refers to female sex, not to the male sex.
Note that the four circumstances enumerated
under this paragraph of Article 14 can be
considered separately or singly if they arose
from rationally interconnected factual
circumstances.
 ILLUSTRATION
1. Where they are appreciated as one.

A planned to kill B, a retired judge who is actively

engaged in civic and social activities in her
community. A committed the act of killing B inside
the latter’s dwelling in the middle of the night to
exploit the darkness of the same. A has knowledge
that B is retired judge because A was her former
laborer in one of her bungalows in the city.
In this illustration, the aggravating circumstances
of rank, age, sex, dwelling are considered as only
one aggravating circumstance since they arose
out of the same factual circumstances. That is, as
incident of the consummation of the killing of B.
REASON FOR THE RULE: Penal laws are
interpreted in favor of the accused. This is te
reason why these circumstances were contained
in one item of Art. 14, RPC (Regalado).
 ILLUSTRATION
2. Where they are appreciated separately.

A planned to kill B, a retired judge who is actively engaged in civic and

social activities in her community. A committed the act of killing B by
waiting for B at her home’s gate. When B arrived at her home, she
opened the window of her car and called upon her body guard, C, to
open the gate. Upon noticing that B opened the window of her car, A
shot B causing the latter’s death. A also killed C. To conceal the corpus
delicti of the crime, A pulled the remains of A and C inside the
former’s house. When A was about to leave the dwelling of A, he
noticed that B is still alive. As such, he thoroughly disposed of the
latter. A has knowledge that B is retired judge because A was her
former laborer in one of her bungalows in the city.
In this instance, the fur cannot be appreciated as
one aggravating circumstance, since they did not
arise from single or interconnected factual
circumstances. The final blow against the person
of B inside her dwelling is a circumstance which
attended after all the acts of execution of the
crime of murder were already perpetrated by A.
Hence, cannot be appreciated with rank, age,
and sex as one aggravating circumstance.
 When aggravating circumstance of “rank”
cannot be appreciated against the accused.
1. When the offender acted with passion and
obfuscation (People vs. Ibanez, C.A. G.R. No.
1137-R);

2. When there exist a relationship between

the offended party and the offender (People
vs. Valencia, CA 43 O.G. 3740);
DWELLING
 Concept
A dwelling includes dependencies,
staircase, and enclosures under the house. It is
not necessary that the house is owned by the
offended party. It may include a room in a
boarding house, for home is that which the
law seeks to protect or uphold whether the
dweller is a lessee, a boarder, or a bed spacer
(People vs. Magnaye, May 30, 1951).
 A dwelling must be a building or structure,
exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
combination of a house and a store or a
market stall where the victim slept is not a
dwelling (People vs. Magnaye, supra).
What is included in the term dwelling?

We already answer this, although to be

particular, in the case of People vs. Rios, G.R.
No. 132636, June 19, 2000, the SC made
mention that dwelling includes dependencies.
 What now is included in the term
“dependencies”?
Let us check Art. 301, RPC, heto sabi niyang provision na yan:

“Art. 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building

dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies.;
xxx.
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-
houses, stables or other departments or inclosed places
contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance
connected therewith, and which form part of the whole, shall be
deemed dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or
building dedicated to religious worship.
 Other concept of dwelling in cases
embraced under Arts. 280 and 299, RPC.
However, a store which is used for rest and
comfort is a dwelling within the meaning of
Article 280 (trespass to dwelling) (see the
case of People vs. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43540,
Aug. 3, 1935) and Article 299 (robbery in an
inhabited house) (see the case of People vs.
Tubog, G.R. No. L-26284, Nov. 17, 1926.)
Important considerations in dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance.
One does not lose his right of privacy in the
dwelling where he is offended in the house of
another because as his invited guest, he, the
stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and
protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It
may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief
moment, “home” to him. He is entitled to respect
even for That short moment (Peole vs. Balansi, G.R.
No. 77284, July 19, 1990, the so-called “Balansi
principle”.)
Important considerations in dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance

However, Balansi doctrine is not applicable

where the victim merely attended a birthday
celebration. The house the birthday was
celebrated is not his dwelling (People vs.
Ramolete, G.R. No. L-28108, March 27, 1974.)
Balansi and Ramolete ruling distinguished.
It is important to take note that in Balansi, the victim, although a
visitor, was allowed by the owner to stay at the dwelling as a guest for
several days (as there was wedding celebration). The SC mentioned,
“’Dwelling’ is considered an aggravating circumstance because
primarily of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
According to one commentator, one's dwelling place is a "sanctuary
worthy of respect" and that one who slanders another in the latter's
house is more guilty than if he who offends him elsewhere. However,
one does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the
house of another because as his invited guest, he, the stranger, is
sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same intimacy of life
it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief moment,
‘home’ to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment.”
 In the case of Remolete, the victims merely
attended the a birthday celebration (birth of a
grandchild begotten by Nicasia Rabanal). The
victims were not given authority nor was
received in the dwelling with the expectation
that they would be staying for few days. They
were mere visitors for that particular occasion.
Important considerations in dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance

Dwelling shall not be appreciated where

the victim was only about to step on the first
rung of the ladder of the dwelling when he
was attacked (People vs. Suspense, G.R. No.
L-9346).
Important considerations in dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance
For the circumstance of dwelling to be
considered, it is not necessary that the
accused should have actually entered the
dwelling of the victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside
his own house, although the assailant might
have devised means to perpetrate the assault
from the outside (People vs. Perreras, G.R.
No. 139622, July 31, 2001.)
When dwelling is not aggravating:
1. When the victim is a mere visitor who is not
authorized to stay at the dwelling (overnight
stay) (People vs. Ramolete, supra.);

2. When both the offender and the offended

party are occupants of the same house. The right
to privacy in the dwelling can only be invoked
against those who are not living therein (People
vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, Jan. 21, 2004.)
EXCEPTION to rule no.2: In case of adultery
(Art. 333, RPC) in conjugal dwelling, the same is
aggravating. This is so since in the crime of
adultery, respect between the spouses is
inevitable and necessary. However, if the
paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling,
the applicable aggravating circumstance is
abuse of confidence under Par. 4 of Art. 14, RPC
as to the paramour, and dwelling to the spouse.
3. When the robbery is committed by the use of force
upon things (also in robbery in an inhabited place),
dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent (US vs.
Cas, G.R. No. 5071, Aug. 18, 1909)

4. It is not inherent in the crime of robbery with violence

against, or intimidation of prsons because this class of
robbery can be committed without the necessity of
trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house
(People vs. Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988.)
 5. Aggravating circumstance of dwelling
may not be appreciated against the accused
where the incident causing the injury
originated from an altercation between the
offender and the offended party (People vs.
Rios, G.R. No. 132636, June 19, 2000.)
Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling.
 Concept and Point of view of its
application/appreciation.
The provocation in the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling;
2. Sufficient; and
3. Immediate to the commission of the
crime.
Presence of all the said elements is necessary in
order that provocation may affect the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

In case provocation on the part of the victim is

present as contemplated under this provision of
Art. 14, RPC, aggravating circumstance of
dwelling cannot be appreciated against the
accused.
 Illustration
A, while traversing an alley, was called upon
by B from his veranda. B uttered “Kung
matapang ka A, halika’t magkasubukan tayo!”
Because of the said utterance by B, A picked a
s tone the size of baseball, and hurled the
same towards B’s direction. B was hit by the
stone causing injury which required more than
ten days of hospitalization and medical
attendance.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling may
not be appreciated against A considering the
attendance of provocation on the part of B, the
owner of the house/dwelling.

REASON: When it is the victim who has provoked

the incident, he loses his right to the respect and
consideration due him in his own house (People
vs. Ambis, G.R. No. 46298, September 30, 1939.)
 Assignment

Please check also the case of Pepito vs. CA, G.R.

No. 119942, July 8, 1999 and People vs.
Cordero, G.R. No 97229, Jan. 5, 1993.
 Par. 4, That the act be committed with:
1. Abuse of confidence; 2. Obvious ungratefulness.

General rule: Note that this paragraph of Art. 14

provides for 2 aggravating circumstances. These are:
1. Abuse of Confidence; and 2. Obvious
ungratefulness. Reason: The basis of their
appreciation lies in two distinct reasons.

Exemption: The case of People vs. Verdad, G.R. No.

51707, May 16, 1983.
 People vs. Verdad, G.R. No. L-51797, May
16, 1983.
On or about the 7th day of July, 1979, in Cabanatuan City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, armed with a bolo, with
intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation of person, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal and carry away from the residence of Tomas
Ramos the following, to wit:
1. Stereo Casette - P1,000.00
2. Cash money amounting to P30.00
3. Assorted jewelries valued at P6,000.00 belonging to Maria Rowena Ramos and
Tomas Ramos and, as a further result thereof said accused by reason of or on the occasion
of said rsobbery, with intent to kill, assaulted and used violence upon the person of the
same Maria Rowena Ramos, that is by hacking her thru the use of a bolo, inflicting upon
the latter serious physical injuries particularly on the head which directly caused the
latter's death.
The crime was committed with the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of
abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, evident premeditation, taking advantage
of and with use of superior strength and with the use of a motor vehicle and nighttime
 People vs. Verdad, G.R. No. L-51797, May
16, 1983.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness, 8and abuse of superior strength 9were properly appreciated
by the Trial Court. The accused was treated like a member of the family and
was completely trusted. That confidence facilitated the commission of the
offense. The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is likewise present.
The accused had abused that superiority which his sex and the weapon he
had employed afforded him and from which the 14-year-old Rowena was
unable to defend herself. 1
With the plea of guilty offsetting only one of the aggravating
circumstances, there still remains another aggravating circumstance that
calls for the imposition of the penalty in its maximum period, or death, 1 as
found by the Trial Court. However, for lack of the necessary votes to impose
this extreme penalty, the sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua.
 Abuse of confidence
Basis of aggravation: Greater perversity of the
offender as shown by the means and ways employed.

Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of theft,

must be the result of the relation by reason of
dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the
accused-appellant and the offended party that might
create a high degree of confidence between them which
the accused-appellant abused (People vs. Cahilig,
199208, July 30, 2014).
 Note that generally, this aggravating
circumstance is generic in nature, however, it
becomes qualifying circumstance in the crime
of qualified theft (See Art. 310, RPC).
 People vs. Zea, G.R. No. L-23109 June 29,
1984.
With respect to abuse of confidence, the
same can be appreciated only if the following
requisites are present: (a) the offended party
had trusted the offender; (b) the offender
abused such trust; and (c) such abuse facilitated
the commission of the crime. In the present
case, the above requisites have not been fully
met. Elegio and Zea came to know Tan Diong
Ong only about two weeks before the incident.
Betrayal of trust, not an aggravating
circumstance
People vs. Crumb, C.A., 46 O.G. 6163.

Facts: The offended party as living in the house of the

accused, her parents having entrusted her to the care of
said accused. One day, at about 6:30 in the evening, while
the offended party was standing in front of a store
watching some children who were playing, the accused
approached her, took her by the arm and forcibly led her
to an isolated toilet, hidden from public view by some tall
grasses, and once in the spot, he intimidated her with
knife and through the use of force and violence
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
 Issue: Whether or not the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence may be
appreciated against the accused.
 Held: There is no showing that the accused
was able to commit the crime by abusing the
confidence reposed in him by the offended
party. The accused betrayed the confidence
reposed in him by the parents of the girl. But
this is not an aggravating circumstance. It must
be an abuse of confidence that facilitated the
commission of the crime which is aggravating.
People vs. Alqueza, 51 Phil. 817, 819-820.

We take it that in this particular case the fact that the

accused lived in the same house as the offended party is not
enough, in itself, to hold that there is such aggravating
circumstance, for after all, that house did not belong to the
offended party (pp. 61, 62, t. s. n.). As this court said in the
case of United States vs. Cabaya Cruz (4 Phil., 252), it might
serve to describe the accused's conduct as disgraceful, but not
as an abuse of confidence, for which it is required to show
what was the confidence reposed in the accused, and that it
facilitated the commission of the crime, in order that it might
be judged whether or not he had abused such confidence
Abuse of confidence must facilitate the
commission of the crime.
 People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
Accused-appellant Salvador Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann Arrojado are
first cousins, their fathers being brothers. The victim’s father, Alberto Arrojado,
who was living in Canada, suffered a stroke for which reason he decided to
come home to Roxas City and spend the remainder of his days there. The
victim accompanied her father to the Philippines. They eventually settled in a
house in Barangay Tanque, Roxas City, where they lived on the financial
support of the victim’s sister Asuncion, who continued to live in Canada, and
her brother Buenaventura, who lived in Manila.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

Starting February 15, 1996, Accused-appellant lived with the victim and her
father. He helped care for the victim’s father, for which he was paid a
P1,000.00 monthly salary.
 People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
In the early morning of June 1, 1996, Accused-appellant went to the
house of his cousin, Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo, and reported that the
victim had committed suicide. In response, Erlinda, together with her
husband Romulo Magdaluyo and her father Teodorico Arrojado, went with
accused-appellant to the house in Barangay Tanque where they found the
victim dead. The victim, who was bloodied, was lying on her left side facing
the bedroom door with her hands clasped together. On her bed was a
rosary and a crucifix. Near her was a knife. Erlinda recognized it to be the
knife kept in the kitchen. Erlinda also noticed that the electric fan was
turned on full blast, while all the windows were closed except the window
on the east side which was slightly open. As he went to the other room,
where the victim’s father stayed, Accused-appellant told Erlinda that he was
afraid he might be suspected as the one responsible for the victim’s death.
 People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, however, is
present in this case. For this aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential
to show that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and
personal such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier
for him to commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. In
this case, while the victim may have intimated her fear for her safety for
which reason she entrusted her jewelry and bank book to Erlinda Arrojado
Magdaluyo, her fears were subsequently allayed as shown by the fact that
she took back her personal effects from Erlinda. Thinking that accused-
appellant would not do her any harm, because he was after all her first
cousin, the victim allowed accused-appellant to sleep in the same room
with her father and left the bedroom doors unlocked.
 Abuse of confidence is inherent in the
following instances:
1. Qualified seduction (Art. 334, RPC);
2. Qualified theft (art. 310, RPC);
3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation
(Art. 315, RPC);
4. Malversation (Art. 217, RPC).
 Obvious Ungratefulness
Basis of aggravation: The commission of the
crime in an utter indifference to the generosity
and kindness of the victim.

Unlike in abuse of confidence, duration of

existence of this element is not material. It may
be appreciated regardless of the duration or
presence of trust and confidence between the
offender and the offended party.
 People vs. Bautista and Abuhin, G.R. No. L-
38624, July 25, 1975.
The aggravating circumstance of obvious
ungratefulness was present where the victim was
suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the
assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast.
Instead of being grateful to the victim, at least by
doing him no harm, they took advantage of his
helplessness when his two arms were used for
carrying their food, thus preventing him from
defending himself from the sudden attack.
 Instances where obvious ungratefulness was
appreciated by the Supreme Court.
When the accused killed his father-in-law in
whose house he loived and who partially
supported him (People vs. Floresca, G.R. No. L-
8614-15, may 31, 1965);

When the victim was suddenly attacked while

in the act of giving the assailants their bread and
coffee for breakfast (People vs. Bautista, G.R. no.
L-38624, July 25, 1975);
Instances where obvious ungratefulness was
appreciated by the Supreme Court.
When the accused was living in the house of the
victim who employed him as overseer and in charge of
the carpentry work, and had free access to the house of
the victim, who was very kind to him, his family, and who
helped him solve his problem (People vs. Lupangco, G.R.
No. L-32633, November 12, 12, 1981).

The circumstance may be appreciated if the accused, a

security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the bank
(People vs. Nismal, G.R. No. L-51257, June 25, 1982).
 Par. 5, That the crime be committed:
1. In the palace of the Chief Executive;
2. In his presence;
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties; or
4. In a place dedicated to a religious worship.
 Although there are several matters mentioned
under this paragraph, the basis of their
aggravation is the same, hence, if present in a
particular case, they appreciated as one.

Basis of aggravation: Greater perversity of the

accused as shown by the place of the commission
of the crime, which must be respected.
 In the Palace of the Chief Executive,
important considerations
Palace here means “vicinity,” so it includes
the fenced perimeter area of the palace. This is
not the same with the concept of “dwelling”
under paragraph 3 of Article 14, RPC.

Note also that this can be appreciated even if

the President/Chief Executive is not present in
the vicinity of the said palace.
 Important considerations.
Unlike in the case of a place dedicated to religious
worship; it is not required for this mitigating circumstance to
be appreciated that the purpose of committing the crime is
to disrespect the Palace.

It is aggravating even if no public function is being

performed their, unlike in the case of aggravating
circumstance of “place where the public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties,” where public
function must be engaged in the performance of their
function.
In the presence of the Chief Executive

It is important that the offender has

knowledge of the presence of the Chief
Executive. It is essential before this
aggravating circumstance may be appreciated
against the actor.
Where the public authorities are engaged in
the discharge of their duties
The public authorities must be performing public
function in the public office when the crime was
committed. The offender must have intention to
commit a crime when he entered place (People vs.
Jaurigue, G.R. No. C.A. No. 384, February 21, 1946).

If the public authorities are not performing public

function, then this aggravating circumstance finds
no application.
Where the public authorities are engaged in
the discharge of their duties
If the public officials are performing their public
function while away from their office, and a
violation of law was committed in their
presence, item no. 2 of Art. 14, RPC is the
applicable aggravating circumstance.

Note also that in this aggravating circumstance,

the public authorities may or may not be
offended party.
 Peole vs. Adolfo Canoy, G.R. No. L-6037,
September 30, 1954.
An electoral precinct or polling place during election day is a
place “where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties.”
Note that if the crime is committed in the presence of public
authorities, the circumstance of place of commission is not
aggravating. It is item no, 2, of Art. 14, RPC, or contempt of
public authorities which is the proper aggravating circumstance
to be appreciated against the accused. Hence, it is required that
the public authorities are engaged in their public function.
 Par. 5 vs. Par. 2
“Where the public authorities are “Act committed in contempt or insult to
engaged in the performance/discharge of public authorities
their duties” (Par. 5, Art. 14, RPC
The subject matter is the place where the The subject matter is the person of the
public authority is performing his public authority himself
function/duties.
In both instances, the public authority must be engaged in, or at least performing his
public function
It is committed in their office Committed outside the place where they
are performing their duties.
The public authority may or may not be The public authority must not be the
the offended party victim/offended party (because Art. 62,
RPC will be applicable).
 In a place dedicated to religious
worship.
The place must be dedicated to public
religious worship; private chapels are not
included.

Cemeteries are not included in the concept

of places dedicated to religious worship.

Lastly, discharge of religious worship or

rites are not required in order fort his
aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.
Par. 6, That the crime be committed:
1. During nighttime (nocturnidad);
2. In an uninhabited place (despoblado);
or
3. By a band, whenever such circumstance
may facilitate the commission of the offense
(cuadrilla)
Basis of aggravation: The time and place of the
commission of the crime and the means
employed.

There are three (3) distinct aggravating

circumstances in this paragraph. When present
in the commission of an overt act, they are
separately considered and can subsist
independently. (People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-
4989., May 21, 1952).
Two Test in determining these aggravating
circumstances.
1. When it facilitated the commission of the
crime (OBJECTIVE TEST); and

2. When the offender took advantage

thereof for the purpose of impunity
(SUBJECTIVE TEST).
 Important Consideration
These aggravating circumstances are not applicable when the
mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation or sufficient
provocation are present in the commission of the crime.
REASON: Par. 6 of Art. 14, RPC, entails that the aggravating
circumstances were particularly sought after by the
perpetrator. There is a conscious effort to utilize these
aggravating circumstances either objectively or subjectively.
On the other hand, the mitigating circumstances of sufficient
provocation and passion or obfuscation necessitate that the
actor acted by reason of impulse brought about by the
provocation or particular circumstance which caused passion
or obfuscation.
 Nighttime (Nocturnidad)
That period of darkness beginning at the
end of dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are
from sunset to sunrise (Art. 13, Civil Code).

It is necessary that the commission of the

crime began and was computed at nighttime
(U.S. vs. Dowdell, G.R. No. 4191, July 18,
1908).
This aggravating circumstances may be appreciated
independently of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

Although the crime was committed during nighttime, this

circumstance will not automatically be considered. As such
to facilitate the appreciation of this Aggravating
circumstacne, it must be shown that the accused
intentionally chose the darkness of night (or silence of the
night) to facilitate the commission of the crime (OBJECTIVE
TEST) or to afford impunity (SUBJECTIVE TES) (People vs.
Laguardia, G.R. No. L-63243, February 27, 1987).
 As a general rule, nighttime is an ordinary
aggravating circumstance because the
darkness of the night facilitated the
commission of the crime or insured impunity.
Thus, nighttime cannot be appreciated if it is
committed in a lighted place although at the
wee hours of the night (People vs. Moral, G.R.
No. L-41134, October 12, 1989).
 If the offender purposely selected the wee
hour of the night when the neighbors and
occupants of the house inducing the victim
were sleeping to facilitate the commission of
the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime shall
be appreciated even if the place of
commission is lighted (People vs. Demate,
G.R. No. 132310, Jan 20, 2004).
 NOTE!
It cannot be appreciated in cases involving
accidental meeting, a chance encounter, or
spurs of the moment.

It cannot be appreciated as an aggravating

circumstance when the crime began at daytime.
The commission of the crime should begin and
end at nighttime (People vs. Luchico, G.R. No.
26170, Dec. 6, 1926).
 Nighttime and Treachery
The general rule is that, nighttime is absorbed by treachery.
Reason: Their basis of aggravation is on account of the means
employed in the commission of the act.

EXN: If they are based on separate and entirely distinct factual

bases. The SC ruled that inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the
fact that the victim’s hands were tied at the time they were beaten,
the circumstance of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery, but can
be appreciated distinctly therefrom, since the treachery rest upon
independent factual basis. A special case therefore is present to
which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not
apply (People vs. Berdida, G.R. No. L-20183, June 30, 1966).
 Uninhabited Place
An uninhabited place is one where there are no
house at all, a place at a considerable distance
from town, or where the houses are scattered at a
great distance from each other (Reyes, Book I).

Uninhabited place is an aggravating circumstance,

or special aggravating circumstance in robbery by
means of violence or threat (Art. 295, RPC).
 Important considerations
Even when the houses is inhabited, if that is
the only house in the said place and the
victims are the only inhabitants of the house,
uninhabited place shall be appreciated.
(Reyes).
The uninhabited nature of a place is determined
not by the distance of the nearest house to the
scene of the crime but whether or not there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
some help. The felony was perpetrated in the
open sea, where no help could be expected by
the victim from other persons and the offenders
could easily escape punishment (People vs.
Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, Aug. 31, 1987)
 This aggravating circumstance cannot be
appreciated in cases of chance encounter,
altercation, or accidental meeting.
 Band (En quadrilla)
Whenever more than three(i.e., at least 4)
armed malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed committed by a band.

Nota buene: 1. The 4 men contemplated in

this circumstance must all be principals by
direct participation who acted together.
2. It absorbs the aggravating circumstance of abuse
of superior strength.

3. This agg circ is not applicable in crimes against

chastity, but is considered in crimes against
property, crimes against persons, illegal detention,
and treason (People vs. Corpus, C.A. 43 O.G. 2249;
People vs. Laoto, G.R. No. 29530, Dec. 8, 1908).
3. This agg. Circ. Is however inherent in the crime of
brigandage (Art. 306, RPC)

4. The Code does not define or require any particular

arms or weapons. Any weapon which by reason of its
intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was used
is capable of inflicting serous fatal injuries upon the
victim may be appreciated as arms for purposes of
the law on cuadrilla (Peole vs. Lozano, G.R. No.
137370-71)
Par. 7, That the crime be committed on occasion
of conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, etc.
Basis: The time of the commission of the crime.

This is a generic aggravating circumstance but considered

as qualifying under Art. 248, RPC.

Reason for aggravation: In the midst of a great calamity,

the offender, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds
to their suffering by taking advantage of their
misfortune to despoil them. It is necessary that the
offender took advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
“Other calamity” mentioned under this par. Refers to
other conditions of distress to those preceding in the
enumeration (like presence of war, rebellious acts of
group of men and similar instances) (People vs.
Corpus, CA 43 O.G. 2249).

As such, development of an engine trouble (of a

banca), even though a misfortune, is not an incident
contemplated under Par. 7 of Art. 14 of RPC (People
vs. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969).
 Note that it is required that the circumstance
mentioned under this paragraph of Art. 14, RPC
must be deliberately utilized by the
actor/perpetrator. As such, it cannot be
appreciated in the following instances:
1. Cases of attendance of negligence or
carelessness;
2. In case where passion or obfuscation;
3. In cases of chance encounter, altercation, and
accidental meeting.
Par. 8, That the crime be committed with the
aid of:
1. Armed men; or
2. Persons who insure or afford impunity.
 In this paragraph, the principal who used the
aid of armed men or persons who afford
impunity will suffer this aggravating
circumstance.

If present in the same factual circumstance,

they will be considered as one aggravating
circumstance..
 Armed Men
This is either generic aggravating circumstance or
a qualifying aggravating circumstance under Art. 248,
RPC.

It means men equipped with weapon (basta more

than one na armed person).

Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is

sufficient to constitute this aggravating circumstance.
 Aid of armed men requires that:
1. That the armed men are mere accomplices
who take part in minor capacity; either directly
or indirectly (People vs. Lozano, G.R. No.
137370-71, September 29, 2003); and
2. That the accused availed himself of their
aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
 As such, this aggravating circumstance should
not be appreciated where aremed men acted in
concert to ensure the commission of the crime
(People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 13117, June 15,
2004)
 Limitations on its applications
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 him under the same plan and for
the same purpose (Simply put, pag may
conspiracy, di to pwede! Ganyaaannnnnn!!!!!!!)
 Band vs. Armed Men
Band (Par.6) Armed Men (Par. 8)

As to their number

Requires more than three (3) armed At least two (2) (Pwede rin more than
malefactors (i.e., at least 4) two, pwede kahit ilan, basta more than
dalawa!)

As to their liability

Band members are all principals Armed men are more accomplices

As to their liability

Band members Armed men are mere accomplices.

 Nota Buene
Where the aggravating circumstance of band is
present the aggravating circumstance of armed men
is automatically inapplicable against the accused:
REASONS: 1. Band absorbs armed men; and
2. Legal impossibility considering that armed med
requires that there should be no conspiracy
between the actors, on the other hand, band
requires the same, therefore, the finding of band
necessarily render it legally impossible to establish
armed men as aggravating circumstance
 EXCEPTION:

In case of multiple offenders and armed men

aiding the multiple offenders, who are armed
and falls within the definition of a band,
although the act arose from single factual
circumstances.
 ILLUSTRATION:

A,B,C, and D, all armed, attacked X,Y, and Z,

with the intent of killing them (X,Y, and Z). While
in the course of consummating their evil design,
P,Q,R,S, all of them are also armed, came to the
aid of A,B, C, and D aided them in the
commission of their evil design.
 ILLUSTRATION:

Here, A, B, C, and D could be held liable for

with the aggravating circumstance of band
applicable to them, whereas P, Q, R, and S will
be considered to have had aided A,B,C, and D,
and therefore, aggravating circumstance of aid
of armed man may be appreciated also against
A, B, C, and D considering that they availed of
the aid of P, Q, R, and, S.
 Persons who afford impunity
In the circumstance of aid of persons who
insure or afford impunity, offender purposely
sought or consciously relied upon persons to
secure him against detection and punishment.

In the circumstance of aid of persons who

insure or afford impunity, unlike in armed men,
the persons, whose aid the offender relied upon,
are not required to be armed.
 Persons who insure or afford
impunity must have or be in a
position to afford impunity.
 ILLUSTRATION
A killed X. B and C helped A in throwing the
dead body of X at the sea to prevent the
discovery of the crime. A is liable as principal for
the crime of murder qualified by the
circumstance of aid of persons who insure or
afford impunity. B and C are liable as
accessories.
 Armed men vs. Persons who afford or insure
impunity
Armed Men
In the circumstances of aid of armed men,
the offender purposely sought or
consciously relied upon the aid of armed
men in committing a crime.
In aid of armed men, the men, whose aid
the accused relied upon, must be armed
Persons who afford impunity
In the circumstance of aid of persons who
insure or afford impunity, offender
purposely sought or consciously relied
upon persons to secure him against
detection and punishment.
In the circumstance of aid of persons who
insure or afford impunity, the persons,
whose aid the offender relied upon, are
not required to be armed.
Par. 9, That the accused is a recidivist
(a.k.a Reincidencia).
In recidivism, the previous crime and the
present crime are embraced in the same Title of
RPC.

Basis of aggravation: Greater perversity of the

offender as shown by his inclination to crimes.
 Who is a recidivist?
He 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 RPC
(People vs. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991.)

Nota buene: A recidivist is entitled to the benefits

of Indeterminate Sentence Law but is disqualified
from availing the credit of his preventive
imprisonment under Art. 29, RPC.
 Requisites
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses
are embraced in the same title of RPC.
 “At the time of the trial” (for second
offense), explained.
• In recidivism, it is sufficient that the succeeding
offense be committed after the commission of the
preceding offense provided that at the time of his
trial for the second offense, the accused had already
been convicted of the first offense.
• It is employed in its general sense. Meaning, it
includes everything that is done during or in the
course of trial, from arraignment until after the
sentence is announced by the judge in open court
(People vs. Lagarto, supra).
At the time of the trial” (for second offense),
explained.
• If both offenses were committed on the same
date, they shall be considered as only one,
hence, they cannot be separately counted in
order to constitute recidivsm. Also, judgments
of conviction handed down on the same day
shall be considered as only one conviction
(Galang vs. People, G.R. No. L-45698, Dec. 18,
1937).
At the time of the trial” (for second offense),
explained.
• To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same
in the information and to attach thereto a certified copy
of the sentences rendered against the accused
(Estrada, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110, Rules of Court).

• Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how

many years have intervened between the first and
second felonies (People vs. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547,
February 22, 1974).
At the time of the trial” (for second offense),
explained.
• Even if the accused was granted a pardon for
the first offense, but he commits another
felony embraced in the same title of the Code,
the first conviction is still counted to make him
a recidivist since pardon does not obliterate
the fact of prior conviction (U.S. vs. Sotelo,
G.R. No. 9792, October 3, 1914; People vs.
Lacao, G.R. No. 95320, September 4, 1991).
At the time of the trial” (for second offense),
explained.
• Recidivism can still be appreciated even if
before his trial for the present crime he was
convicted by final judgment of his previous
crime (People vs. Bernal, G.R. No. 44988,
October 31, 1936).
 Presence of recidivism (generic aggravating
circumstance) and habitual delinquency
(special aggravating circumstance) against the
accused.
 People vs. Canuto Bernal, G.R. No. L-44988,
October 31, 1936
The question arose, in the course of our deliberation on this case, of
whether or not in instances where the accused turns out to be an habitual
delinquent the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, when alleged and
proved, should be taken into account in fixing the penalty applicable for the
commission of the principal offense, independently of the additional
penalty provided by law for habitual delinquency. It has been urged that
said aggravating should not be considered, otherwise it would be twice held
against the accused inasmuch as it is necessarily taken into account in
ascertaining whether he is a habitual delinquent or not. The majority of the
court hold to the contrary view, namely, that recidivism should be reckoned
with; hence, the accused is sentenced to the minimum of the maximum
penalty fixed by law.
n resolving this question as above set out, the majority of the court gave
heed to the following considerations:
 People vs. Canuto Bernal, G.R. No. L-44988,
October 31, 1936.
First: This is not the first time that the question has been submitted to the
consideration of the court. In People vs. Melendrez (59 Phil., 154), and People
vs, Espina (62 Phil., 607), we have already held that in cases similar to the one
at bar, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be taken into
consideration, notwithstanding the allegation and proof that the accused were
habitual delinquents and should accordingly be sentenced to the additional
penalty provided by law; and

Second: It is not correct to assume that recidivism is twice taken into account
when the accused is declared an habitual delinquent and when it is deemed to
aggravate the crime in fixing the principal penalty to be imposed, because
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance modifying criminal liability is not an
inherent or integral element of habitual delinquency which the Revised Penal
Code considers as an extraordinary and special aggravating circumstance.
People vs. Canuto Bernal, G.R. No. L-44988,
October 31, 1936.
Under the last subsection of paragraph 5 of article 62 of he
Revised Penal Code, a person shall be deemed to be habitually
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa, or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener. Paragraph 9 of article 14 of the Revised Penal Code defines
recidivism by stating that it is committed by a person 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
Code. Defining reiteration or habituality paragraph 10 of the same
article provides that it is committed when the offender has been
previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches at an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
People vs. Canuto Bernal, G.R. No. L-44988,
October 31, 1936.
Reflecting on these definitions it will be seen that recidivism,
viewed as an aggravating circumstance, is not a factor or element
which necessarily forms an integral part of habitual delinquency. It will
be noted that the elements as well as the basis of each of these
circumstances are different. For recidivism to exist, it is sufficient that
the accused, on the date of his trial, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title. For the existence of habitual delinquency, it is not enough that
the accused shall have been convicted of any of the crimes specified,
and that the last conviction shall have taken place ten (10) years
before the commission of the last offense. It is necessary that the
crimes previously committed be prior to the commission of the
offense with which the accused is charged a third time or oftener.
 Par. 10, That the offender has been previously
punished:

1. For an offense to which the law attaches an equal or

greater penalty; or
2. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.

(Nota beune: Also known as Reiteracion/Reiteration or

Habituality.)
 Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by his
inclination to crimes.

Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he has previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches (not the penalty actually
imposed):
a. equal or greater penalty; or
b. for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty that that for the new offense; and

3. That he is convicted for the new offense.

 Important considerations
If the second offense or crime is punishable
under a special law, it cannot be considered
under reiteration because Arts. 13, 14, and 15
of RPC are not applicable to special law crimes.
 Important considerations
Take note that both recidivism and reiteration
are both generic aggravating circumstances, hence,
they can be offset by a mitigating circumstance.
Quasi recidivism, on the other hand, is a special
aggravating circumstance, the presence of which,
will require the application of the penalty for the
present crime in its maximum period, regardless of
the presence of a mitigating circumstance (except
privileged mitigating circumstance).
“Previously punished,” explained.
• The phrase “previously punished” employed in
defining reiteration means that the accused
has served out the sentence for his previous
sentence.
“Previous crimes and present,” explained.

• If there is only one prior offense, it must be punishable

by a penalty equal or greater than that for the by a
penalty equal or greater that that for the present crime.
If there is more than one prior crime, reiteration is
present even if the previous crime/s is/are punishable by
a lesser penalty that that ofr present crime. Thus, there
is reiteration even if the penalties for grave slander,
qualified trespass to dwelling, and robbery, which have
been served out, are less than that for the crime of
murder (People vs. Moto, G.R. No. L-44660, January 11,
1979.
Can recidivism and reiteration be appreciated
at the same time against the same accused
based on single factual circumstances?
People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24,
1995.

Answer: No!
Query: Why Ser?
 People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24,
1995.
Appellant was previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed (Revised Penal Code, Art.
266, Title Eight) and grave threats (Revised Penal Code, Art. 282, Title Nine). He was
convicted of homicide in the instant criminal case (Revised Penal Code, Art. 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. While grave threats fall in a title
(Title Nine) different from homicide (Title Eight), still reiteracion cannot be appreciated
because such aggravating circumstance requires that if there is only one prior offense, that
offense must be punishable by an equal or greater penalty than the one for which the
accused has been convicted. Likewise, the prosecution has to prove that the offender has
been punished for the previous offense. There is no evidence presented by the prosecution
to that effect.

Appellant is convicted of homicide, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance

of passion and obfuscation, which is offset by the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
 NOTA BUENE!

Try to be familiar with the rulings in the cases of

People vs. Bernal G.R. No. L-44988, October 31,
1936 and People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436,
March 24, 1995.
 To summarize these cases:
1. People vs. Bernal – Pwede magsabay ang recidivism
and habitual delinquency. REASON: Not essential element ng
habitual delinquency and recidivism. Whereas, in the case
of;

2. People vs. Real – Hindi pwedeng magsabay ang

recidivism and habituality/reiteracion. REASON: It is required
that in reiteracion, the subsequent violations are not
embraced within the same title of RPC. In short, there is
legal impossibility to appreciate recidivism and reiteracion
separately against the accused.
 Expanded applications/Legal experiment (Might be
asked in the Bar Exam powwwwzz).

Query: How about habituality and habitual

delinquency, can they be appreciated separately against
the accused?
 Humble Opinion ni Ahmedzideck
The answer is qualified! This is so since in the case of
multirecidivism, the crimes involved ay serious physical
injuries and/or falsification robbery, theft, estafa, or
falsification. Thus if the crimes involved would be serious
physical injuries and/or falsification and any of the crimes
of robbery, theft, estafa, then habituality and habitual
delinquency may be appreciated since the legal
impossibility mentioned in the case of People vs. Real will
not be present. Meaning, these are combinations of crimes
which are not embraced within the same title of ROC.
 On the other hand, if the crimes to be appreciated for
establishing habituality would be any of the crimes of robbery,
theft, or estafa and the same be committed for three times or
oftener within the period of ten years from the date of the
accused’s release or last conviction, as such, used as
constituent crimes for establishing habitual delinquency, then
habituality cannot be appreciated with that of habitual
delinquency. The reason being that the legal impossibility
mentioned in the case of People vs. Real will be availing (all of
these crimes are embraced under the same title of RPC. They
are all crimes against property! Ayaaaaaannnnnnn!!!!!!!!)
 Reincidencia vs. Reiteracion
Recidivism Reiteracion
As to the first offense
It is necessary that the offender shall have It is enough that a final judgment has
had served out his sentence for the first been rendered in the first offense.
offense
As to the kind of offense involved
Requires that offenses be included in the The previous and subsequent offenses
same title of the Code must not be embraced in the same title of
RPC (People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436,
March 24, 1995)
As to frequency
Not always aggravating (if the second Always to be taken into consideration in
offense’ penalty as provided by the law is fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the
not equal to or greater than the previous accused
one to which the accused served out).
As to which one prevails in case they are both present.
It prevails. Must give way to recidivism.
The Four (4) Forms of Repetition
1. Recidivism (reincidencia) (Par. 9, RPC)

Where a person, on separate occasions, is

convicted of offenses embraced in the same title
in the RPC.

This is a generic aggravating circumstance.

 2. Reiteracion/Habituality (Par. 10, RPC)

Where the offender has been previously

punished for an offense to which law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.

This is also a gerneric aggravating

circumstance.
 3. Multirecidivism/ Habitual delinquency
(Art. 62., par. 5., RPC)
Where a person within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of
any of the said crimes a third time or oftener.

One of the so-called special aggravating

circumstances.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, RPC)
Where a person commits a felony before beginning
to serve or while serving sentence on a previous
conviction for felony.

Also one of the so-called special aggravating

circumstances, particularly termed as “extraordinary
special aggravating circumstance” because it
modifies the penalty for the offense (meaning, it adds
penalty to what is already provided under the law!)
 Note that quasi-recidivism will be appreciated
regardless of whether the previous crime, for
which an accused is serving the previous
sentence at the time of the commission of the
crime charged, falls under the RPC or under the
special penal law (People vs. Alicia, G.R. No. L-
39176, January 22, 1980). But the present crime
must be a felony!
 Existence of habituality (Par. 10, Art. 14,
RPC) and quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
Ahmed’s humble opinion: Note that in
reiteracion, it is required that the accused had
duly served his sentence for his previous
conviction, or is legally considered to have done
so, in effect, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same
time be appreciated with reiteracion. Hence,
there is legal impossibility in appreciating
reiteracion and quasi-recidivism against the
same accused.
Existence of Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) and
Multirecidivism (Par. 5, Art. 62, RPC)

Madali lang, Art. 160 provides for the answer. Pwede

silang mag co-exist! Let us check Art. 160, RPC. It says:
”Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service
of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty Besides
the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.”
 Par. 11, That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
 Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as
shown by the motivating power itself.
 This aggravating circumstance is either an
ordinary aggravating circumstance or a qualifying
circumstance in murder.

To consider this circumstance, the price

reward, or promise must be the primary reason or
primordial motive for the commission of the
crime (Estrada, See US vs. Flores, G.R. No. 9008,
September 17, 1914).
US vs. Flores, G.R. No. 9008, September 17,
1914.
If there was no offer prior to the killing and
the money was given voluntarily by the accused
after the crime had been committed as a sort of
expression of his appreciation of their sympathy
and aid.
Both the giver and the receiver will be affected
by this aggravating circumstance.
 People vs. Alincastre, G.R. No. L-29891,
August 30, 1971.
In this qualifying circumstance, the offeror
becomes a principal by inducement and the
acceptor, principal by direct participation. It
affects equally the offeror and the acceptor. In
fact, under certain conditions, this circumstance
may evince even greater moral depravity in the
acceptor that in the acceptor.
 Important considerations
Note that it is inherent in the crime of corruption
of public officials under Art. 212, RPC, direct bribery
under Art. 210, RPC, indirect bribery under Art. 211,
RPC, and qualified bribery under Art. 211-A, but not
in the case of prevaricacion under. Art. 208, RPC
 Par. 12, That the crime be committed by means of:

1. Fire, inundation, poison, explosion, stranding of

a vessel or intentional damage thereto; or

2. By use of any artifice involving great waste and

ruin; or

3. Derailment of locomotive.
 Basis: Mean and ways employed.

To easy to understand, I just want you to be

familiar with the case of:
 US vs. Leonardo Bulfa, G.R. No. L-8468,
August 20, 1913.
FACTS: On or about the 17th of January, 1912, at a late hour of the previous night or early
in the morning of this date, Leonardo Bulfa, accompanied by a neighbor of his, Benito
Escamante, went from a hill near the pueblo of Ayuquitan, Oriental Negros, to the vicinity of
the house of Filomeno Catipay and Vicenta Salasayo, situated in the barrio of Siapo, where
they were met by Apolonio Salasayo, a brother of Vicenta, and immediately thereupon
Bulfa, by a palm-leaf torch, set fire to Catipay's house on the side next to the stairs. The
spouses inhabiting the dwelling, being awakened by its burning, at once endeavored to put
out the fire and for this purpose the husband, Catipay, tried to climb to the proof of the
house. Just at this moment Bulfa gave him a lance-thrust in the side, toward the shoulder, as
a result of which he fell heavily to the floor and died within a few moments. Directly after
this assault the defendant, Bulfa, forced his way into the house by breaking the door and, by
threats, compelled the wife of the deceased to show him the money the spouses had
stowed away; this was found in a palm-leaf sack under a heap of corn and more than P1,000
of it was taken by the robber. Immediately after the robbery Bulfa left with Escamante.
Apolonio Salasayo had already departed from the scene of the crime. The house, together
with the corn and other effects therein contained, was reduced to ashes, and, including its
contents, was worth about P500.
 US vs. Leonardo Bulfa, G.R. No. L-8468,
August 20, 1913.
Held: Account must be taken of the
attendance of the aggravating circumstances that
the homicide was committed with treachery, in
the small hours of the night, and in the midst of
the silence and darkness thereof, in an inhabited
house, and by means of the burning of a house
or home in which the defendant was not
unaware there were inhabitants. The crime
committed is robbery with homicide.
 Nota Buene: If the victim did not die as a
result of the burning of the house, ift is
respectfully submitted that the crime committed
is special complex crime of robbery with arson
under (Article 294, RPC).
Assignment.

Distinguish Par. 7 and Par. 12, of Art. 14, RPC.

 Par. 13, That the act be committed with
evident premeditation
Basis: Reference to the ways of committing
the crime because of evident premeditation
implies a deliberate planning of the act before
executing it.

It may be considered as ordinary aggravating

circumstance or qualifying under Art. 248, RPC.
 Elements:
1. The time when the offender determined to
commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination;
3. The date and time when the crime was
committed, to compute the lapse of time; and
4. Sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution of the crime, to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his acts and
to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will.
Essence of evident premeditation
The essence of evident premeditation is that
the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent at
a calm judgment (People vs. Alinao, G.R. No.
191256, September 18, 2013).
 The relationship between evident
premeditation and conspiracy
General rule: Evident premeditation is presumed to exist
when conspiracy is directly established. The reason being is
that conspiracy involves a conscious and deliberate planning
(People vs. Sapigao, G.R. No. 14495, June 18, 2003).
Exception: When conspiracy established is only implied.
The reason being is that in implied conspiracy, mutual design
of the actors is established not by prior agreement to
commit a crime, but by acts of the perpetrators during the
commission of the crime which do not necessarily mean
conscious effort of planning prior to the commission of the
act.
 Important considerations
Premeditation is absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of
reward or promise (and vice versa) but only insofar as the
inducer is concerned since he obviously reflected thereon in
planning the crime but not the person induced since one can be
a principal by direct participation without the benefit of the
reflection (US vs. Manalinde, G.R. No. L-5292, August 28, 1909).

Nota buene: Of course, this rule is subject the circumstances

of the case, if the receiver partook in the planning of the
essential acts constituting the criminal act, then the rule in
Manalinde will not apply.
 It cannot be considered in instances of
chance encounter, accidental meeting, or
altercation. Reason: Basis of aggravation is the
deliberate manner of planning which involves
long process. This is apparently incongruent with
the concept of chance encounter, accidental
meeting, or abrupt altercation. (Dalam Notes)
 Object of premeditation
To appreciate evident premeditation, it is
important that the victim is the object of
premeditation. In sum, the victim killed must be
the person who accused premeditated to kill
(People vs. Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28,
1988).
 Object of premeditation
Thus, where the accused premeditated in
killing the thieves who stole his fishing boat,
evident premeditation shall not be appreciated
if there is no showing that the victim actually
killed is a thief (US vs. Caranto, G.R. No. 1677,
March 13, 1905).
 However, the object of
premeditation can still be
established in cases where the
target is a specific class or group
of people.
 US vs. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, Aug. 28,
2909.
Where the accused premeditated to kill the
first two persons that he would encounter at
Cotabato, evident premeditation shall be
appreciated against him if the victim killed are
the first two persons that he actually
encountered therein.
 US vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344, March 21,
1911.
Same is the rule where the accused
premeditated to kill anyone found in a specific
village or town.
Evident premeditation in cases of
error in personae, abberatio ictus,
and prater intentionem.
 In cases of error in personae, it cannot be appreciated.
REASON: The cases of Trinidad and Belchez. Object of
evident premeditation is specific. See also the case of
People vs. Dueno, G.R. No. L-31102, May 5, 1979.

In aberration ictus, it can be appreciated against the

intended victim, but not against the third person who
was hit by mistake. This is so, since the accused merely
premeditated the killing of a target victim (People vs.
Mapuy-at, G.R. No. 15459, August 10, 1926).
 In praeter intentionem, there is only one
victim. According to Justice Reyes, citing the
case of People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 37408.
October 13, 1933, there is no incompatibility
between evident premeditation and no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Evident premeditation is inherent in the
following instances.
 1. robbery, theft, and estafa;
2. robbery with homicide, although homicide is
the consequence only of robbery.
Reason: The accused is liable for the direct
consequence if his act, including the consequence
of his plans arising from his evil motives.
However, in case both robbery and killing were
preconceived, EP is not inherent, hence, can be
appreciated against the accused.
 3. EP is inherent in the crime of treason
because adherence and the giving of aid and
confort to the enemy is a long process requiring
persistent determination and planning for the
successful consummation of the traitor’s
purpose (People vs. Racaza, G.R. No. L-365,
January 21, 1949).
 Par. 14, That craft, fraud, or disguise be
employed.
There are three aggravating circumstances
here, but they can be appreciated as one if they
arose from the same factual antecedence.

Basis: Means employed in the commission of

the crime.
Craft (Astucio)
Involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on
the part of the accused to aid in the execution of his
criminal design.

Fraud (Fraude)
Insidious words or machinations used to induce the
victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender
to carry out his design.

Disguise (Disfraz)
Resorting to any device to conceal identity.
 Essence/Basis of appreciation
They are appreciated as a means to:
1. Facilitate the commission of a crime
(objective) (People vs. Wilson Lab-eo, G.R. No.
133438, January 16, 2002); or
2. Afford impunity on the part of the accused
(subjective) (People vs. Rizal, G.R. No. L-43497-
98, February 26, 1981).
 According to Justice Regalado, the fine
distinctions between “craft” and “fraud” would
not really be called for as the terms in Art. 14
are variants of means employed to deceive the
victim and if all are present in the same case,
they shall be applied as a singe aggravating
circumstance.
 The cases of People vs. Feliciano, Jr., G.R. No.
195735, May 5, 2014 and People vs. Reyes, G.R.
No. 118649, March 9, 1998.
 People vs. Feliciano, Jr., G.R. No. 195735,
May 5, 2014
Disguise can be appreciated even though the
mask of the accused fell off. The reason is that
the mask facilitated the commission of the
crime.
People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, March 9,
1998.
Disguise cannot be appreciated because at
the outset, it was not effective at all. Hence, it
did not facilitate the commission of the crime.
Craft and Disguise; When absorbed in
treachery, when not absorbed in
treachery.
When absorbed.
 People vs. Wilson Lab-eo, G.R. No. 133438,
January 16, 2002
Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is
deliberately adopted as the means, method, or form
for the treacherous strategy (objective test). In this
case, the accused hid the knife under his jacket in
order to make a treacherous attack, craft is absorbed
in treachery.

Note: Both treachery and craft(or disguise) here

were used to facilitated the commission of the crime.
When not absorbed in treachery.
 People vs. Rizal, G.R. No. L-43497-98,
February 26, 1981
Where the accused disguised themselves as
army men to afford impunity, and assaulted victim
in sudden and unexpected manner, craft is not
absorbed in treachery. They shall be appreciated
independently.

Note: Treachery here was used to facilitate the

crime whereas, disguise (or craft) was used to
afford impunity.
Disguise; discussions.
 It is an ordinary aggravating circumstance if the
accused employed the same to insure or afford
impunity by hiding one’s identity.

It cannot be considered where the accused used

disguise for fear of being attacked. It is appreciated
where it used to facilitate the commission of the crime
or to afford impunity, not where the accused feared for
being attacked by the victim (US vs. Guy-Sayco, G.R.
No. 4912, March 15, 1909).
 Instances where craft, fraud, and disguise
were appreciated by SC.
1. Craft was present when A asked permission from
his employer B, that he would go home to Pangasinan
at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon on the day the felony
(robbery with homicide) was committed but went
back at 10:00 o’clock in the evening, pretending that
he has failed to take a ride to Pangasinan. The
unsuspecting Chinese opened the door and
thereafter, A and his cohorts perpetrated robbery
with homicide (People vs. Revotoc, G.R. No. L-37425,
July 25, 1981).
 2. There is fraud when A, took his
stepdaughter away and told her that she was to
be taken to the house of her grandmother but
instead she was taken to another house where
she was raped (People vs. De Leon, G.R. No.
26867, August 10, 1927).
 3. Disguise is present when A used a mask in
order to conceal his identity when perpetrated
the robbery.
 Par. 15, That:
1. Advantage be taken of superior strength; or
2. Means be employed to weaken the defense
of the victim.
 Basis: Means employed in the commission of
the crime.
Advantage be taken of superior strength

It means to deliberately use excessive force

that is out of proportion to the means for self-
defense available to the person (People vs.
Padilla, G.R. No 75508, June 10, 1994).
Important considerations in abuse of
superior strength.
1. One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation does not take advantage of superior
strength;

2. When quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal

blow was struck at a time when the aggressor and
his victim were engaged against each other as man
to man, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength cannot be appreciated against the
accused.
3. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the
crime of parricide where the husband kills the
wife (People vs. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39305-
05, August 1, 1078).

4. When the victim was alternately attacked,

there is no abuse of superior strength (People
vs. Datun, G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997).
4. Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla
and vice versa.
Means employed to weaken the defense.

This circumstance is applicable only to

crimes against persons, and sometimes
against persons and property, such as robbery
with physical injuries or homicide (special
complex crimes with constituent crimes which
fall under crimes against persons).
 Important considerations
1. Where one, struggling with another,
suddenly throws a clock over the head of his
opponent and while in this situation, he
wounds or kills the victim, the aggravating
circumstance of employing means to weaken
the defense of a party may be appreciated
against the accused (US VS. Devela, G.R. No.
1542, April 9, 1904)
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly
cast sand or dirt upon the latter eyes and then
wounds or kills the victim (People vs. Siaotong, G.R.
No. L-9242, March 29, 1957).

3. Intoxicating the victim, thereby materially

weakening the latter’s resisiting power consititutes
the aggravating circumstance of means employed to
weaken the defense of the vicitm (People vs.
Ducusin, 53 Phil. 380, 289).
 However, if in the victim’s intoxicated state,
it was impossible for him to put up any sort of
defense or resistance at the time he was
attacked, treachery, and not means to weaken
the defense as aggravating circumstance shall
be applied (Reyes).
 Par. 16, Treachery (Alevosia)
Basis: Means and ways employed in the
commission of the crime.
 Requisites/Elements
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
position to defend himself;
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular
means, method, or form of attack employed by him; and
3. Treachery cannot be presumed. It must be proven in
court by the same quantum of evidence required to
establish the guilt of the accused.

EXN to the third requirement: the case of Pipzzzz vs.

Rebucan G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011.
 Treachery, defined.
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 (Art. 14, Par. 16, RPC).

Note: Treachery and evident premeditation, although

appreciated as aggravating circumstances by means employed
in the execution of the crime, will not absorbed each other.
Further, objectivity, as a necessary requirement in evident
premeditation is not required in treachery (Dalam Notes)
 Important considerations
1. Applicable only to crimes against person.
However, it applies to complex or special complex crimes
where one of the constitute crime is properly classified as
crimes against persons (People vs. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074,
July 13, 1999 and People vs. Escote, Jr.).
2. It is not necessary that the means, methods or forms
employed in the execution of the crime insure its
accomplishment as the law says “to insure execution” only.
Hence, it is not necessary that the mode of attack insures
the consummation of offense. By way of necessary
implication, treachery may be appreciated even in cases of
frustrated and attempted stage of murder.
 Thus, where the accused attacked the
offended party unexpectedly and the wounds
inflicted by him upon the latter would have
caused death had not the weapon whereby
the same were inflicted met with an obstacle,
such as the ribs, which prevented its
penetrating the lungs and kidneys, alevosia is
present and the defendant is guilty of
frustrated murder (People vs. Reyes, 47 Phil.
635).
Rules on frontal attacks.
 General Rule
When the attack is frontal, there is no
treachery as the mode of attack does not
include any risk to the offender arising from
the defense which the party attacked may
make. REASON: The victim was forewarned of
the impending attack. The element of surprise
is negated.
 Exception
Even a frontal attack could be treacherous
when unexpected and on an unarmed victim
who would be in no position to repel the
attack or avoid it (People vs. Alfon, G.R. No.
126028, March 14, 2003).
Other Important considerations

Treachery cannot be considered in chance

encounter, accidental meetings, or altercations
(People vs. Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000).
Other Important considerations
Even when the victim was forewarned of
the danger to his person, treachery may still
be appreciated since what is decisive is that
the execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate
(People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 181247, March
19, 2010. Del Castillo case).
People vs. Napalit, G.R. No. 181247, March
19, 2010.
Josh, together with Bimby and three other companions, passed
by the group of James. The latter shouted “ano, gusto nyo,
away?”and then stabbed Josh with an ice pick at the back.
Bimby attempted to help but he was also stabbed by a
companion of the James. Josh died because of the incident. An
Information was filed charging James with the crime of murder,
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
The defense argued that there was no treachery because the
victim was forewarned of the attack when the appellant shouted
“ano, gusto nyo, away?”. It also claimed that the prosecution
failed to prove that appellant consciously adopted the mode of
attack as to insure its commission without risk to himself.
 Held
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by
the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving him of any real
chance to defend himself.
It may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned
of the danger to his person since what is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate. Here, there is no doubt that the
victim was surprised by the attack coming from the James. The
shout of James immediately before stabbing the victim could not
be deemed as sufficient warning to the latter of the impending
attack on his person. After challenging him to a fight, appellant
immediately lunged at him and stabbed him at the back.
Other important considerations
Treachery is taken into account if the victim is a
child, even if the manner of attack is not
shown. (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551,
July 27, 2.011)

Treachery is also appreciated where the victim

was asleep at the time of the assault. (People
vs. Clarino, G.R. No. 134634, July 31, 2001) .
Other important considerations
Treachery may be appreciated even in
instances of praeter intentionem, abberatio
ictus, and error in personae.
 Other important considerations
Treachery absorbs the following;
1. Craft;
2. Abuse of superior strength;
3. Nighttime;
4. Aid of armed men;
5. Cuadrilla (band);
6. Employing means to weaken the defense.

However, treachery does not absorb evident premeditation and vice versa.

Also, treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation (People vs.

Pasensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002).
 Par. 17, That means be employed or
circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
Basis: Means employed.
 Ignominy, defined
It is a circumstance pertaining to moral
order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.
“Which add ignominy to the natural effects
thereof”; meaning.
It means that the means employed or the
circumstances brought about must tend to make the
effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or to
put the offended party to shame and add to his
moral suffering.

As a consequence, it is a requirement that the victim

is still alive when ignominy be applied against his
person (People vs. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404, January
28, 1991).
 Note: Ignominy is not the same as the
qualifying circumstance of “scoffing and
outraging the corpse of the victim” under par.
6, Art. 248, RPC.
Par. 18, That the crime be committed after
unlawful entry.

Basis: Means and employed to commit the

crime.
 Unlawful entry, defined.
It is when the entrance (and not for escape)
is effected by not intended for the purpose.

The act of entering through the window,

which is not the proper place for entrance into
the house, constitutes unlawful entry.
 Unlawful entry is inherent in:
1. Robbery with use of force upon things;
2. Trespass to dwelling;
3. Violation of domicile;
4. Evasion of service of sentence if such
evasion or escape shall have taken place by
means of unlawful entry.
People vs. Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18,
1993.
When the accused gained access to the by
climbing through the window and once inside,
murdered certain persons in the dwelling,
there could be two (2) aggravating
circumstances which attended the commission
of the crime.
Par. 19, That as a means to the commission of a
crime, a:
1.wall;
2. roof;
3. floor;
4. door; or
5. window

be broken.
 Basis: Means and way employed to commit
the crime.

Note: Also termed as aggravating

circumstance of forcible entry (US vs.
Matanug, Phil. 188, 189, 192).
 People vs. Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177,
October 23, 1981.
To be considered as an aggravating circumstance,
breaking the door must be utilized as a means
to commit robbery with homicide where the
accused, after breaking the rope which was used
to close the door could have already entered the
house. Breaking of the shutters and the framing
of the door to insure the elements of surprise
does not aggravate the commission of the crime.
 Significance of Capillas case
Always remember mi amigo y mi amiga that
this aggravating circumstance is appreciated
objectively (to facilitate the commission of the
crime).
 Aggravating circumstance of forcible entry
is inherent in the crime of robbery with force
upon things under Art. 302, RPC.
Par. 20, That the crime be committed:
1. With the aid of persons under 15 years
of age; or
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or
orther similar means.
 Basis: Means and ways employed to
commit the crime

Note that there are two (2) aggravating

circumstances mentioned under this
paragraph of Article 14 of RPC.
The first one tends to repress, so far as possible,
the frequent practice resorted to by professional
criminals to avail themselves of minor taking
advantage of their irresponsibility.

On the other hand, the rule on use of motor

vehicles, airships, or other similar means is
intended to counteract the great facilities found
by modern criminals by using the said means.
 Query:

May this aggravating circumstance be

considered if the motor vehicle was used not
as a means to commit the crime, but only as
a means for flight or concealment of the
offender?
 Two views
Guevara: Yes, because the same furnish a
quick means for the flight or concealment of
the offender.

Reyes: If the motor vehicle was used only in

facilitating the escape, it should be an
aggravating circumstance.
 Siddique’s Comment: The is more view of
Reyes is more in accord with the purpose and
logic of the law. Note that the law uses “That
the crime be committed.” There was no
mention that “the escape was made
effective/trough.”
 Query agaiiiinnnnn.

Eh Ser, paano yong sinabi ng SC sa case ng People vs.

Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970?

In that case, the SC mentioned that the motor vehicle

may be appreciated against the accused if the said
motor vehicle was used in going to the place of the
crime, carrying away the effects of the crime and in
facilitating the escape of the said accused. Paano yan
ireconcile sa sinabi mo Seeerr???
 Sagot
Take note that in this case, at the outset, the vehicle was
used in going to place where the criminal acts would be
committed (in Batac, Ilocos Norte), in carrying the effects
of the crime (the body of the victim and the effects of
the crime of robbery with homicide), and in facilitating
the escape of several accused. Had it been that the
motor vehicle (in this case, jeep) was used only to
facilitate the escape of several accused, then it is the
humble submission of yours truly that this aggravating
circumstance may not be sue against the several
accused.
People vs. Munoz, G.R. No. L-38016, Sept. 10,
1981, and People vs. Mil, GR. No. L-28104-05,
July 30, 1979.

Where the use of the vehicle was incidental

only to the commission of the crime, it is not an
aggravating circumstance (like in case it was
used only to facilitate the commission of the
crime), it cannot be used to aggravate the crime.
 Important considerations
It cannot be appreciated in cases of chance
encounters, accidental meetings, and in
instances of reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property, death, or physical injuries.

REASON: The motor vehicle must be

deliberately and consciously utilized in
facilitating the commission of the crime (People
vs. Munoz. supra)
 Important considerations
Estafa by means of deceit or abuse of confidence cannot be
committed by means of a motor vehicle.

Illustration: Jeep was used in carting away vicks vapor rub. There is
no aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle here.

Reason: Estafa is committed by means of deceit or abuse of

confidence. It is consummated the moment the accused gained
pecuniary advantage to the prejudice of the victim by reason of
deceit or abuse of confidence by the accused. Use of motor vehicle
here is merely incidental to commission of the crime of estafa
(People vs. Bagtos, et al., C.A –G.R. No. 10823-R, Sep. 12, 1955)
“(o)ther similar means”, explained.

It should be understood as referring to

motorized vehicles or other efficient means of
transportation similar to automobile or
airplane (Reyes).
Par. 21, That the wrong done in the commission
of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission.
Basis: Ways employed to commit the crime.
 Requisites

1. That the injury caused be deliberately

increased by causing other wrong; and

2. That the other wrong be unnecessary in

the execution of the purpose of the offender.
 Cruelty, defined.
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary pain in the
consummation of the criminal act (People vs.
Dayug, G.R. No. 25782)
 Important considerations
Number of wounds alone does not show
cruelty, it being necessary to show that the
accused deliberately and inhumanly increased
the sufferings of the victims (People vs.
Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11,
1931).
 Important considerations
If the victim was already dead when the acts of
mutilation were being performed. This would
also qualify the killing to murder, however, not
because of cruelty, it being necessary in cruelty
that the victim be still alive at the time of the
commission of mutilation, but by the
qualifying circumstance of outraging the
corpse of the deceased victim (People vs.
Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994).
Ignominy (Par. 17) vs. Cruelty (Par. 21)
Ignominy Cruelty

Involves moral Involves physical

suffering. suffering.

Not a qualifying A qualifying

circumstance. circumstance under
Art. 248, RPC.
 Outraging or scoffing at the person
of the victim or his corpse.
Note that this is a qualifying circumstance
that elevates the killing from homicide to
murder (Art. 248, RPC).

In addition, it is not mentioned under Art. 14

of the RPC.
-FIN-