ARTICLE 13.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PARAGRAPH 13: THAT THE ACT COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION

BASIS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

• The basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies a deliberate
planning of the act before executing it.

ESSENCE OF PREMEDITATION
• The essence of 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 during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgement.
 REQUISITES OF EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Example:
U.S. v. Manalinde (14 Phil. 77)
Facts: The accused who pleaded guilty confessed that his wife died about one hundred days before; That he
was directed by Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he would meet in the town; that
if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty woman on his return; that in order to carry
out his intention to kill the two persons in the town of Cotabato, he provided himself with a Kris, which he
concealed in banana leaves; that he travelled for a day and a night from his home; that upon reaching the
town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard, and immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman who was close by;
and that he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons.
 MANALINDE ILLUSTRATES THE 3 REQUISITES OF EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION

 First requisite

On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition that he would turn huramentado and kill the
first two persons he would meet in the market place. On said date, the offender is said to have determined
to commit the crime.
 Second requisite

He undertook the journey to comply therewith and provided himself with a weapon. The journey and
the carrying of the weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination to
commit the crime.
 Third requisite

After the long journey for a day and night, he killed the victims. One day and one night constitute a
sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated acts.
 DATE AND TIME WHEN THE OFFENDER DETERMINED TO
COMMIT THE CRIME ESSENTIAL
• The date and, if possible the time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential,
because the lapse of the time for the purpose of the third requisite is computed from the date and time.
Ex.
On Friday afternoon, Pedro decided to kill Jun because of jealousy and on Monday evening around
11:00 pm, he saw Juan walking alone in the dark alley and stabbed Juan. Juan died right after.

SECOND REQUISITE NECESSARY

• The criminal intent evident from outward acts must be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and
determination must be plain and have been adopted after mature consideration on the part of the persons
who conceived and resolved upon the perpetration of the crime, as a result of deliberation meditation and
reflection sometime before it’s commission.
 WHY SUFFICIENT TIME IS REQUIRED
 The offender must have an opportunity to coolly serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the
consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his conscience and better
judgement to overcome his evil desire and scheme.
 Example. Evident premeditation is present when the slaying was done about three hours from the time
the scheme to kill was plotted. ( People V. Gausi).

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND PRICE OR REWARD CAN CO-

EXIST
The aggravating circumstances of price, reward, or promise may be taken into consideration independently
of the fact that premeditation has already been considered, in as much there exist no incompatibility
between those two circumstances, because if it is certain.
WHEN VICTIM IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED,
PREMEDITATION IS NOT AGGRAVATING
 Evident premeditation may not be properly taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to
kill was different from the one who became his victim.
 When the offender decided to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but when he
carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing
of the actual victim. But if the offender premeditated on the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against
the offender the aggravating circumstances in his premeditation.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION, WHILE INHERENT IN ROBBERY, MAY BE AGGRAVATING IN ROBBERY WITH

HOMICIDE IF THE PREMEDITATION INCLUDED THE KILLING OF A PERSON.

Ex. A and B plan to rob and kill C on friday evening. One evening, A and B enter on the window and
stole the money of C, while C heared a faint noise and when he got up to his bed, he saw A and B in
front of C and got killed.
PARAGRAPH 14. THAT CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED
Basis of this aggravating circumstances:
The basis has the reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime.

CRAFT
• involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused.
• A chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
• Example: Where four men, having determined to kill a man in an uninhabited place so that the crime
might be easily discovered, invited him to go with them on a journey to a distant mountain on the
pretense that they would find there a molave tree from which a flower liquid supposed to have a peculiar
virtue, and murdered him in a remote and uninhabited place.
FRAUD insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner
which would enable the offender to carry out his design.
Example : Where the defendants induced their victims to give up their arms upon a
promise that no harm should be done to them and when the latter gave up their arms, the
former attacked and killed them. ( U.S. v. Abelinde).

DISGUISE resorting to any device to conceal identity.

Example: The fact that the defendant had his face blackened in order that he should not
be recognized at the time he committed the crime. (U.S. v. Cofrada).
PARAGRAPH 15: THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR MEANS
BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE

ILLUSTRATIONS OF NO ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. This aggravating circumstances does not apply when a quarrel arose unexpectedly and fatal blow was struck at a
time when the aggressor and his victim were engaged against each other as man to man.

• ILLUSTRATIONS OF ABUSE OFSUPERIOR STRENGTH

A 40 years old man attacked an unarmed 11 years old girl as he was drunk.

• ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OF NUMBER OF AGGRESSORS, IF ARMED

A three armed men wielding bolos and the victim was unarmed and trying to flee. The offenders kill the victim.

• SIMULTANEOUS ATTACK BY TWO PERSONS WITH REVOLVERS AGAINST A DEFENSELESS

PERSON
When two persons took part in the crime armed with bolos or revolvers and made a simultaneous attack upon a
defenseless person.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ABSORBING BAND
 The element of band is appreciated when the offense is committed by more that three armed
malefactors regardless of the comparative strength of the victims. Hence, the indispensable
components of cuadrilla are atleast four malefactors, and all of the four malefactors are armed.

MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

Illustrated in the case where one struggling with another suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his
opponent and while in the said situation, he wounds or kills him. Other means of weakening the defense
would be intoxication or disabling thru the senses (casting dirt of sand upon another’s eyes)

Example: The offender had the intention to kill the victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby
materially weakening the latter’s resisting power. (People v. Ducusin).

Applicable only to crimes against persons.

 PARAGRAPH 16. THAT THE ACT COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY ( ALEVOSIA)

BASIS OF THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

The basis has reference to the means and ways employed in the commission of the crime.

TREACHERY There is treachery when the offender

commits any of the crimes against person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY:
1. Applicable only to crimes against person.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment of crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.

Treachery cannot be appreciated where there nothing in the record to show that the
WHEN
accused had pondered upon the mode or method to insure the killing of the
TREACHERY
deceased or remove or diminish any risk to himself that might arise from the
CANNOT BE
defense that the deceased might make, as when his decision to shoot the victim is
CONSIDERED
sudden, brought about by a stinging provocation from the latter.
Example of Treachery:
• A victim was stabbed while he was asleep.
• The assailant stabbed the victim while the latter
was grappling with another, thus rendering him
practically helpless and unable to put up any
defense.
REQUISITES OF TREACHERY
1. At the time of the attack, the
victim was not in the position to
defend himself.
Ex. The accused suddenly attacked
the victim without warning, he was
shot in the head and stabbed in the
back.
2. That the offender consciously adopted to
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
Ex. The accused, armed with a gun, riding in
tandem on a motorcycle, suddenly and without
warning shot the victim in the back as the
motorcycle speed by. The victim was then
walking along a road, unsuspecting and unarmed.
The motorcycle then turned back to where the
victim lay wounded, and the accused fired at him
once more, again hitting him in the back.
THERE IS NO TREACHERY WHEN;

The accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare.

Where the attack is preceded by a warning
Where shooting is preceded by heated discussion
TREACHERY CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH PASSION OR
OBFUSCATION:
Treachery cannot CO-EXIST with PASSION or obfuscation, for
while in the mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation,
the offender loses his reason and self-control, in the aggravating
circumstances of Treachery the mode of attack must be
consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control
could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or
form of attack in the execution of the crime. (People v. Wong).
PARAGRAPH 17: THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.

BASIS OF AGRAVATING IGNOMINY:

CIRCUMSTANCES: Is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
The basis has reference to the means employed. wich adds disgrace and obloquy to material injury
caused by the crime.

“Which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act”.
According to this clause, the means
employed or the circumstances
brought about must tend to make the
effects of the crime more humiliating
or to put the offended party to shame.
Ex. A case where one rapes a married woman in the
presence of her husband. (U.S. V. Iglesia).
Ex. Between seven and eight o’ clock in the evening, the unwary
victim went to the beach where she was accustomed to void and when
she squatted, the assailant unexpectedly appeared behind her, and held
her hair, thus tilting her face, and while in that posture, he inserted
into her mouth the muzzle of his pistol and fired. she died. (People V.
Bumindang).
NO IGNOMINY WHEN A MAN IS KILLED IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS
WIFE:

The fact that the deceased was killed in the presence of his wife certainly could not
have such signification. (U.S. V. Abaigar, supra).

RAPE AS IGNOMINY IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE:

Rape committed on the occassion of robbery with homicide increases the moral
evil of the crime.
PAR. 18. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
BASIS OF THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The basiss has reference to the means and ways employed to commit the crime.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY: TO EFFECT ENTRANCE Ex. The act of entering

There is an unlawful NOT FOR ESCAPE. through the window,
entry when an entrance Unlawful entry must be a which is not proper
is effected by a way not means to effect entrance and place for entrance into
intended for the not for escape. the house, constitutes
purpose. unlawful entry.
R
E
A APPLICATION OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCES
S One who acts,
O not respecting
It should be considered in rape committed in Dwelling and unlawful entry taken
N a house after an entry through the window. separately in murders committed in
the walls erected Also in murder where the accused entered dwelling.
by men to guard the room of the victim through the window.
F their property It should be considered also in robbery with When the accused gained access to the
O and provide for violence against or intimidation of persons, dwelling by climbing through the
R their personal
because unlawful entry is not inherent in window and once inside, murdered
particular kind of robbery. The window is certain persons in the dwelling, there
safety, shows a not intended for entrance into the building. were two aggravating circumstances
A greater which attended the commission of the
G perversity, The malefactors shall enter the house or crimes- dwelling and unlawful entry.
G greater audacity; building in which the robbery was
R committed, by any of the following means:
hence the law Through an opening not intended for
E punishes him entrance or egress. By breaking any wall,
S with more roof, or floor or breaking any door or
S severity. window. By using false keys, picklocks or
I similar tools.
O
N
PAR.19. THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME, A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE
BROKEN
BASIS OF THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE:
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime.

Ex. A broke the window to enable himself to reach a purse with money on the
table near that window, which he took while his body was outside of the building.

TO EFFECT ENTRANCE ONLY:

Ex. A murderer who, for the purpose of entering the house of the victim, breaks a wall or a
window of a house.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS NOT
AGGRAVATING IN TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING

Trespass to dwelling is committed when a private

individual shall enter the dwelling of another against
the latter’s will and may be committed by means of
violence.
According to Art. 280. Any private person who shall
enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will,
shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000).
 WHEN BREAKING OF DOOR IS
LAWFUL Under Rule 113, Section 11 (Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure), Right of officer to break into building or
enclosure. An officer, in order to make an arrest either
Rule 126, Section 7 (Revised Rules of Criminal by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided
Procedure). Right to break door or window to in section 5, may break into any building or enclosure
effect search. The officer, if refused admittance where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably
to the place of directed search after giving notice believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after
of his purpose and authority, may break open announcing his authority and purpose.
any outer or inner door or window of a house or
any part of a house or anything therein to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein.
Ex. A committed murder and currently in
hiding. The Police Officers found out his
place, announcing their presence to issue a
warrant of arrest but A refuses to.
PAR. 20. THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF
PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE, OR BY MEANS OF
MOTOR VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS.
BASIS OF THUS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime.

WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE

Ex. A caused B, a boy 14 years old, to climb the wall of the house of C,
to enter the same through its window, and once inside, to take as in fact B
took, clothes and other personal property in the house of C. Then B threw
them to the ground where A picked them up.
BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused used the motor
vehicle in going of the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects
thereof, and in facilitating their escape

Ex. A with the help of B and with lewd designs, forcibly took and
carried away a woman by means of an automobile to another town.

USING OF MOTOR VEHICLE TO TRANSPORT STOLEN GOODS

IS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
PAR. 21. THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING
OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR IT’S COMMISSION
BASIS OF THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
The basis has reference to ways and employed in committing the crime.

CRUELTY
When the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

For cruelty to be appreciated, the evidence must show that the sadistic culprit, for his pleasure and
satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and gradually, and inflicted on him unnecessary moral and
physical pain.
 1. That the injury caused deliberately increased by causing
other wrong.
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of
the purpose of the offender.
Ex. A wanted to kill B and stabbed B multiple times and A
wanted more so he sliced and took the flesh from the thighs, legs
REQUISITES OF and shoulders of B for cheating on him. After that B died.
CRUELTY

Ex. A woman And her two daughters, one of them is Corazon were
fired at by the accused, Corazon screamed for help. One of the
accused grabbed her, raised her from the ground, while the other
accused battered her with the but of the riffle and pounded her on
the ground. (People v. Beleno).
 THERE IS NO
CRUELTY IN:
• PLURALITY OF WOUNDS
• WHEN OTHER WRONG
DONE WAS DONE AFTER
THE VICTIM WAS DEAD.
IGNOMINY DISTINGUISHED
FORM CRUELTY:
Ignominy involves moral suffering,
while cruelty refers to physical
suffering.
SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Violation of domicile nighttime, papers or affects not
returned immediately.
2. Interruption of religious worships: violence or threats
3. Direct assault weapon, offender is a public officer or
employees, offender lays a hand s upon a person in
authority.
4. Grave threats; in writing, through a middleman
5. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons uninhabited place, band, EXCEPT robbery with
homicide or robbery with rape; and
6.Robbery with for upon things uninhabited place and
by a ban.
 ART. 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Alternative circumstances are those which The alternative circumstances are:

must be taken into consideration as 1. Relationship
aggravating or mitigating according to the 2. Intoxication
nature and effects of the crime and other 3. Degree of instruction and education
conditions attending its commission. They are of the offender
the relationship, intoxication, and degree of
instruction and education of the offender.
 RELATIONSHIP

The alternative circumstances Of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is:
• Spouse
• Ascendant
• Descendant
• Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
• Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
 WHEN RELATIONSHIP
IS MITIGATING
2. Crimes against persons
When the offense committed is less
serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries and the offended
party is relative of lower degree.
1. Crimes against property by analogy to the provisions
of Article 332.
• Robbery, usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, and arson.
Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the
crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious
mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil
liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of
his relationship to the offended party.
In the provision of this Article 332, when the crime
commmitted is theft, swindling or estafa, or malicious
mischief, relationship is exempting.
 WHEN RELATIONSHIP IS
AGGRAVATING
1. Crimes against persons
a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of;
• A higher degree than the offender, or
• When the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same degree
b) In physical injuries
• The crime against persons is serious physical injuries, even if the offended party is a descendant of the
offender but the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
• The offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries if the offended party is
relative of a higher degree of the offender.
c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a
relative of lower degree.
d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his stepdaughter, or in a case where a father
rapes his own daughter.
2. Crimes against chastity
In acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating, regardless of whether the
offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party.

INTOXICATION

a) Mitigating- if intoxication is not habitual, or intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony.
Ex. A and B were drinking liquor, after a few hours A and B got into a heated argument. A under the
influence of liquor, punched B to the state where B was hit in a vital parts of the body which caused him to
die.
b) Aggravating- if intoxication is habitual, or if it is intentional subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony.
Ex. The defendant testified before the murder, he took a bottle of wine and drank little by little until he
got drunk. The policeman who arrested the accused testified that the latter smelled of wine and vommitted.
The court held that the evidence presented was not satisfactory to warrant a mitigation of penalty(People V.
Noble).
 NOTE

• Intoxication must diminish the agent’s capacity to know the

injustice of his acts, and his will to act accordingly.
• The quantity consumed prior to the commission of the crime
must be sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason.
• To be considered as mitigating circumstances, it must be
proven that the accused is not a habitual drinker and did not
take the alcohol in order to reinforce his resolve to commit the
crime.
 DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating.

High degree of instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender
avails himself of his learning in committing the crime.

Ex. A lawyer, who, with Ex. An Igorot who never

abuse of his education and received any education
learning commits estafa. violated a traffic rules, jay
walking.
General Rule: Lack of sufficient education is mitigating.
Exceptions:
1. Crimes against Property (e.g., estafa, arson, theft,
robbery)
2. Crimes against Chastity
3. Treason
4. Murder
5. Rape
THAT’S ALL
THANK YOU!