ARTICLE 14: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES o It is sufficient that these circumstances be specified in

Aggravating Circumstances: Those which, if attendant in the the Information to apprise the accused of the charges
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, against him to enable him to prepare fully for his
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by defense, thus precluding surprises during the trial.
law for the offense Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of
Basis: the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the increasing the penalty
commission of the felony as shown by: 1. Which in themselves constitute a crime especially
1. Motivating power punishable by law or which are included by the law in
2. Place of the commission defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
3. Means and ways employed Example: that the crime committed by means of fir is in
4. Time itself a crime of arson
5. Personal circumstances of the offender or the offended 2. Any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to
party such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
Four Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances commission
1. Generic: can generally apply to all crimes (examples: Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in theft,
dwelling, nighttime, recidivism) robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage
*In Article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the offenders:
14, 18, 19 and 20, except by means of motor vehicles, are Aggravating circumstances which arise:
generic aggravating cicumstances a. From the moral attributed of the offender
2. Specific: apply only to particular crimes (example: ignominy b. From his private relations with the offended party
in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes c. From any other personal cause, shall only serve to
against persons) aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and
*Paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 21 of Article 14 accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant
3. Qualifying: those that change the nature of the crime Examples:
(example: treachery or evident premeditation qualifies the 1. A, with evident premeditation, gave B P1000 to kill C. B
killing of a person to murder) immediately killed C. Evident premeditation shall serve to
4. Inherent: must of necessity accompany the commission of aggravate only the liability of A, but not that of B.
the crime (example: evident premeditation is inherent in 2. A, stepson of B, killed the latter. C, knowing that A killed B
robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage) without justification, buried B. The private relation of A
Generic vs Qualifying with B shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A.
Generic Qualifying Aggravating circumstances which depend for their application
Effect: if not offset by any Effect: not only to give the upon the knowledge of the offenders
mitigating circumstance, crime its proper and The circumstances which consist
increase the penalty should exclusive name but also to a. In the material execution of the act
be imposed upon the place the accused no other b. In the means employed to accomplish the act
accused to the maximum penalty than that specifically Shall serve only to aggravate the liability of those persons only
period without exceeding prescribed by law for said who has knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the
the limit prescribed by law crime act or their cooperation
May be compensated by a Cannot be offset by a Examples:
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance 1. A ordered B to kill C. A and B did not talk about the
If qualifying circumstance is Must be alleged in the manner C would be killed. B killed C with treachery. The
not alleged information aggravating circumstance of treachery consists in the
Aggravating Circumstance not alleged material execution of the act. Since A had no knowledge of
- Generic circumstances, even if not alleged in the it, treachery shall aggravate only the liability of B.
information, may be proven during the trial over the 2. A ordered B & C to kill D during nighttime. B & C killed D at
objection of the defense and may be appreciated in nighttime. Although A did not take direct part in the
imposing the sentence commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of
- Generic: merely forms part of the proof of the actual the crime shall also aggravate his liability because he had
commission of the offense and does not violate the knowledge of it at the time of the execution.
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the Aggravating circumstances are not presumed but should be
nature and case of accusation against him proved fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty.
- Qualifying must be alleged because it is an integral part of 2000 Revised Penal Code: every complaint or information must
the offense state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating
- If not alleged in the information, treachery is only generic circumstances.
- Qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by the Paragraph 1: Offender took advantage of his public position
words aggravating/qualifying, qualifying, or qualified Basis: greater perversity of the offender as shown by the
by to be considered as qualifying circumstances. personal circumstance of the offender and also by the means
used to secure the commission of the crime
- Applicable only when the offender is a public officer
- The public officer must use the influence, prestige, or
ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by
which he realizes his purpose.
- When the public officer did not take advantage of the
influence of his position, this aggravating circumstance is
not present.
- When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official function, he should be punished
as a private individual without this aggravating
circumstance.
- There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his
public position.
- Wearing uniform is immaterial in certain cases.
o Although he was in civilian clothes at the time, it is
nonetheless obvious that knowing that the offended
party was aware of his being a policeman, and sought
to impose, illegally, his authority penalty provided
by law must be meted out in its maximum period.
- Failure to official duties is tantamount to abusing of office.
- Not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or
inherent in, the offense.
o Malversation, falsification of document
- If the accused could have perpetrated the crime even
without occupying his position, there is no abuse of public
position.
Paragraph 2: Contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities
Basis: greater perversity as shown by his lack of respect for the
public authorities
Requisites:
1. Public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
functions
2. Crime committed is not against the public authority
3. Offender know him to be a public authority
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from
committing the criminal act
Public authority: person in authority, public officer who has the
power to govern and execute the laws
- Paragraph 2 is not applicable when crime is committed in
the presence of an agent only
- The crime should not be committed against the public
authority.
o If the crime is committed against a public authority
while he is in the performance of his official duty, the
offender commits direct assault.
- Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential
o Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a
public authority is present indicates lack of intention to
insult the public authority
- Presence of public authority has not prevented offender
from committing the crime
Paragraph 3: (1) With insult or in disregard of the respect due
the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c)
sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation
- Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph
- If all four circumstances are present, they have the weight
of one aggravating circumstance only
Basis: greater perversity as shown by the personal
circumstances of the offended party of the commission of the
crime
Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor
- Robbery of a thing belonging to the President the mere
fact that the thing belongs to the President does not make
it more valuable than the things belonging to a private
person
Meaning of with insult or in disregard
- There must me be evidence that in the commission of the
crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult
the sex or age of the offended party
With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party
1. Of the rand of the offended party
a. There must be a difference in the social condition of
the offender and the offended party
b. Rank: grade or official standing, relative position in civil
or in social life, or in any scale of comparison within a
position
c. Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult
required
2. Of the age of the offended party
a. When the offended person, by reason of his age, could
be the father of the offender
b. Applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as
well as of old age
c. Deliberate intent to offend or insult required
d. Disregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with
homicide
3. Of sex of the offended party
a. Refers to the female sex, not to the male sex
Not applicable in certain cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended
party and the offender
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in
the commission of the crime (examples: parricide, rape,
abduction, seduction)
That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party
- Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used
for rest and comfort
- A combination of house and store or a market stall where
the victim slept is not a dwelling
- Basis: greater perversity as shown by the place of the
commission of the offense
- Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance
primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
to human abode ones dwelling place is a sanctuary
worthy of respect
What aggravates the commission of the crime in ones dwelling
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed
in the offender by opening the door to him
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein with violence or against the will of the owner
- The evidence must show clearly that the defendant entered
the house of the deceased to attack him
Offended party must not give provocation
- When it is the offended party who has provoked the
incident, he loses his right to the respect and consideration
due him in his own house
- Provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling
2. Sufficient
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime
- If all of these conditions are present, dwelling of the
offended party is not an aggravating circumstance
- If any of those conditions is not present, the offended party
is deemed not to have given provocation aggravating
circumstance
There must be close relation between provocation and
commission of crime in dwelling
- Exception: Defendant learned that deceased and the
formers wife were maintaining illicit relations. That the
provocation was not given immediately prior to the
commission of the crime. Dwelling is still aggravating.
- If the defendant surprised the deceased and the wife of the
defendant in the act of adultery in the house of the
deceased, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling would
not exist.
Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the
offended party.
Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circumstance
applies
- It is not necessary that the accused should have entered
the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house.
- Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is
aggravating provided that the commission of the crime
began in the dwelling.
- Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention
- Dwelling was not aggravating in a case where the deceased
was called down from his house and he was murdered in
the vicinity of the house
When the deceased had two houses where he used to live, the
commission of the crime in any of them is attended by the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases
- When both the offender and offended party are occupants
of the same house
- When the robbery is committed by the use of force upon
things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.
But dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons because this class of robbery can
be committed without the necessity of trespassing the
sanctity of the offended partys house
- Crime of trespass to dwelling
- Owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
provocation
- Dwelling where the crime was committed did not belong to
the offended party
- When the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-
story structure, the lower floor being used a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
Dwelling was found aggravating in the following cases although
the crimes were committed not in the dwelling of the victims
- Victim was raped in the boarding house where she was a
bedspacer
- Victim was killed in the house of her aunt where she was
living with her niece dwelling may mean temporary
dwelling
- The victims, while sleeping as guests in the house of
another person, were shot to death in that house. Dwelling
was held aggravating. The Code speaks of dwelling, not
domicile
Dwelling is aggravating when the husband killed his estranged
wife in the house solely occupied by her
In case of adultery
- When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the
husband, even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful
wife, it is aggravating because besides the latters breach of
the fidelity she owes her husband, she and her paramour
violated the respect due to the grave offense against the
head of the house
- Dwelling not aggravating in adultery when paramour also
lives there
- Abuse of confidence when the offended husband took
the paramour into his home, furnished him with food and
lodging without charge, and treated him like a son
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
Paragraph 4: With (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness
Basis: greater perversity as shown by the means and ways
employed
Requisites:
1. Offended party had trusted the offender
2. Offender abused such trust by committing a crime against
the offended party
3. Abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the
crime
- The confidence must facilitate the commission of the crime,
the culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief
that the former would not abuse said confidence
- No abuse of confidence where the deceased and the
accused happened to be together because the former
invited the latter
- Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating
- The confidence between the offender and the offended
party must be immediate and personal
- Abuse of confidence inherent in some felonies:
malversation, qualified theft, estafa by conversion or
misappropriation, qualified seduction
- Ungratefulness must be obvious
- Accused and the offended party live in the same house is
not in itself enough to hold that there was present abuse of
confidence where the house was not the property of the
offended party.
Paragraph 5: Committed in the palace of the Chief Executive,
or in his presence, or where the public authorities are engaged
in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to
religious worship
Basis: greater perversity of the offender as show by the place of
the commission of the crime which must be respected
Paragraph 5 vs Paragraph 2
Paragraph 5: place where Paragraph 2: contempt or
the public authorities are insult to public authorities
engaged in the discharge of
their duties
In the performance of their duties
Must be in their office Performing duties outside of
their office
Public authority may be the Public authority should not
offended party be the offended party
- Official or religious functions, not necessary
- The President need not be in Malacanang. His presence
alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough
to constitute the aggravating circumstance.
- Other public authorities must be actually engaged in the
performance of duty
- An electoral precinct during the election is a place where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties.
- Place dedicated to religious worship cemeteries are not
such a place
- Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he
entered the place
Paragraph 6: Committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an
uninhabited place, or (3) by a band whenever such
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense
Basis: based on the time and place of the commission of the
crime and ways employed
- These 3 circumstances constitute only one aggravating
circumstance if they concur in the commission of felony
- Court: no general rule which would exclude the possibility
of their being considered separately when their elements
are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently,
revealing a greater degree of perversity
- People vs Cunanan: Nighttime and band where considered
separately
Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band is aggravating when
1. Facilitated the commission of the crime
2. Especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
3. When the offense took advantage thereof the purpose of
impunity
- If it appears that the accused took advantage of the
darkness for the more successful consummation of his
plans, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity should
be applied.
- Aggravating when they are especially sought for or when
the offender took advantage thereof
o Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion
to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its
commission or when the crime was committed at night
upon a mere causal encounter
o Where the accused waited for the night, nighttime is
especially sought for
Nighttime need not be specifically sought for when (1) it
facilitated the commission of the offense, or (2) the offender
took advantage of the same to commit the crime.
2 tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance:
1. Objective test: nocturnity is aggravating because it
facilitates the commission of the offense
2. Subjective test: nocturnity is aggravating because it was
purposely sought by the offender
- For the purpose of impunity means to prevent his being
recognized or to secure himself against the detection and
punishment
Nighttime
- Period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and ending at
dawn
- By and of itself is not an aggravating circumstance
becomes so only when it is especially sought by the
offender, or take advantage of him to facilitate the
commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from
capture
- Where the darkness of the night was merely incidental,
nighttime is not aggravating
- The information must allege that nighttime was sought for
or taken advantage by the accused of that it facilitated the
commission of the crime
- Not aggravating when crime began at daytime
- The commission of the crime must begin and be
accomplished in the nighttime
- When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating
- The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not
negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime self-
evident that nighttime was sought by appellant to facilitate
the commission of the offense
Uninhabited place
- One where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerate distance from town, or houses are scattered at
a great distance from each other
- Determined by whether or not in the place of the
commission of the offense there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help
- When the victims are the occupants of the only house in
the place, the crime is committed in an uninhabited place
- It must appear that the accused sought the solitude of the
place where the crime was committed, in order to better
attain his purpose
By a band
- More than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense
- Armed men must act together in the commission of the
crime
- The mere fact that there are more than three armed men
at the scene of the crime does not prove the existence of a
band
- If one of the four armed persons is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band principal by
inducement undoubtedly connotes that he has no direct
participation in the perpetration
- Aggravating in crimes against property or against persons
or in the crime of illegal detention or treason
- Not applicable to crimes against chastity (rape)
- Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in
aggravating circumstance of by a band
- Inherent in brigandage (brigand: a robber who travels with
others in a group) should not be considered as
aggravating
Paragraph 7: Committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or
misfortune
(deflagration: large destructive fire)
Basis: time of the commission of the crime
Reason: in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid
to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune to despoil them
- The offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune
Paragraph 8: Committed with the aid (1) armed men, or (2)
persons who insure or afford impunity
Basis: means and ways of committing the crime
Requisites:
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the
crime, directly or indirectly
2. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
when the crime was committed
Exceptions
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 under the same
plan and for the same purpose
- By band: more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense
- Aid of armed men: even if one of the offenders merely
relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary
- Aid of armed men is absorbed by employment of a band
if there are four armed men
- Aid of armed men includes armed women
Paragraph 9: Accused is a recidivist
(recidivist: relapse into criminal behavior)
Basis: inclination to crimes
Recidivist: one who, ate 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 RPC
Requisites:
1. Offender is on trial for an offense
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime
3. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the
same title of RPC
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense
- What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the
commission of the crime.
- At the time of his trial should not be restrictively
construed as to mean the date of the arraignment. It
includes the rendering of the judgment. It meant to include
everything that is done in the course of the trial from
arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge
in open court
- No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense
committed before the offense involved in the prior
conviction
o Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide
committed on December 23, 1947. He was previously
convicted of theft committed on December 30, 1947
not a recidivist
- Judgments for three offenses were read on the same day
recidivist?
o No, because the judgment in any of the first two
offenses was not yet final when he was tried for the
third offense
- The present crime and the previous crime must be
embraced in the same title of this Code
o When the offense is punishable by an ordinance or
special law and the other by the RPC, the two offenses
are not embraced in the same title of the Code
- Examples of crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC:
robbery and theft, homicide and physical injuries
- There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two
felonies is more than 10 years must be taken into
account no matter how many years have intervened
between the first and second felonies
- Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a
recidivist; bust amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its
effect.
Paragraph 10: Offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attached an equal or greater penalty
to which the law attached an equal or greater penalty for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty
Basis: shown by his inclination to crimes
Requisites:
1. Accused is on trial for an offense
2. Previously served sentence for another offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attached lighter penalty than that
for the new offense
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
- Reiteracion or habituality
- Has been previously punished: accused previously served
sentence for another offense or sentences for other
offenses before his trial for the new offense
- Second requisite is present when:
1. Penalty provided by law for the previous offense is equal
to that for the new offense
2. When the penalty provided by law for the previous offense
is greater
3. Accused served at least two sentences, even if the
penalties provided by law for the crimes are lighter
- Penalty for the first offense is less than that for the second
offense no habituality
- Homicide before and homicide now? recidivism (first
and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the
Code
- It is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty
actually imposed
- Not always aggravating: If the offenses for which the
offender has been previously convicted are against
property and not directly against persons
Recidivism vs Reiteracion
Reiteracion Recidivism
Necessary that the offender Enough that a final judgment
shall have served out his has been rendered
sentence for the first offense
Previous and subsequent Offenses be included in the
offenses must not be same title of RPC
embraced in the same title of
RPC
Not always an aggravating Always to be taken into
circumstance consideration in fixing the
penalty to be imposed upon
the accused
4 Forms of repetition:
1. Recidivism (Art 14 (9)) generic aggravating circumstance
2. Reiteracion or habituality (Art 14 (10)) generic
aggravating circumstance
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (Art 62 (5))
extraordinary aggravating circumstance
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art 160) special aggravating
circumstance
Habitual delinquency: when a person, within a period of 10
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification is found guily of any of the said crimes a
third time or oftener.
- Offender is either a recidivist or one who has been
previously punished for two or more offenses (habituality)
- Shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual
delinquent
Quasi-recidivism: 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
Paragraph 11: Crime be committed in consideration of price,
reward, promise
Basis: motivating power itself
Presupposes the concurrence of two or more offenders
- The one who gives or offers the price or promise
- The one who accepts it
- Both are principals
o First: inducing the latter to commit the crime
o Second: commits the crime
- Affects not only the person who received the price or
reward, but also the person who gave it
- Cannot be considered for a person who did not commit the
crime in consideration of price and reward
- The evidence must show that one of the accused used
money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of
inducing another to perform the deed
Paragraph 12: by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, and any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin
Basis: Means and ways involved
- When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies
the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only
- When there is no actual design to kill a person in burning a
house, it is plain arson even if a person is killed.
- When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is
murder
By means of fire:
- If the purpose of the explosion, inundation, fire or poison is
to kill a predetermined person, the crime committed is
murder. Once any of these circumstances is alleged in the
information to qualify the offense, it should not be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance for the
purpose of increasing the penalty, because it is an integral
element of the offense
- But if a house was set on fire after the killing of the victim,
there would be two separate crimes of arson and murder
or homicide. There would not be an aggravating
circumstance by means of fire.
By means of explosion
- If one of the people died, but there is no intent to kill on
the part of the offender, it will be a crime involving
destruction
- If there is intent to kill and explosion is used by the
offender to accomplish his criminal purpose, it is murder if
it the victim dies.
By means of derailment of locomotive
- Without prejudice to the criminal liability for other
consequences of criminal act
It will be noted that each of the circumstances may be a
part of the definition of particular crime
o In these cases, they do not serve to increase the
penalty, because they are already included by the
law in defining the crimes
Paragraph 13: With evident premeditation
Basis: reference to the ways of committing the crime, evident
premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before
executing it
Essence of premeditation: 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 judgment
Not aggravating: when the attack was made in the heat of
anger
The premeditation must be evident: There must be evidence
showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his
intention between the time when the crime was committed and
the time it was actually perpetrated.
Requisites of evident premeditation
The prosecution must prove:
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. 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.
Carrying of weapons are acts manifestly indicating that the
offender clung to his determination to commit the crime
The second requisite is necessary: Premeditation must be
based upon external acts and not presumed from mere
lapse of time.
Second requisite exists:
o When the crime was carefully planned by the
offenders
o When the offenders previously prepared the
means which they considered adequate to carry it
out
Mere threats without the second element does not show
evident premeditation.
Satisfactorily established only if it is proved that the
defendant had deliberately planned to commit the crime,
and had persistently and continuously followed it,
notwithstanding that he had ample time to allow his
conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he
had so desired, after meditation and reflection
Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof of
evident premeditation.
Three hours or less considered sufficient lapse of time.
People vs Crisostomo: accused did not have sufficient time
to reflect during the two hours that preceded the killing
Why sufficient time is required
- Offender must have an opportunity to coolly and 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
judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.
o Exception: when conspiracy is only implied,
evident premeditation may not be appreciated
Evident premeditation and price or reward can co-exist.
o General rule: price or reward implies
premeditation
o Applicable only to the one who induced the crime
Does not necessarily mean that the other
had sufficient time to reflect on the
consequences of his act.
When the victim is different from that intended,
premeditation is not aggravating.
For premeditation to exist, it is not necessary that the
accused planned to kill a particular person.
o Declared to kill whoever he should meet
o A general attack upon a village
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 circumstance of premeditation, because
whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his
premeditation.
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be
aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation
included the killing of the victim.
o Inherent in robbery, specially where it is
committed by various persons
Paragraph 14: That craft, fraud and disguise be employed
Basis: means employed in the commission of the crime
Application: characterized by the intellectual or mental rather
than the physical means to which the criminal resorts to carry
out his design
CRAFT
- Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
accused
- Riding a taxi as passenger to commit robbery
- Pretending to be constabulary soldiers
- Use of innocent-looking chocolate with sleeping pills to
rape the girl
- Not attendant where the unlawful scheme could have been
carried out just the same without the pretense
- Not aggravating when craft partakes of an element of the
offense
FRAUD
- Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim
to act in a manner which would enable the offender to
carry out the design
- Accused lured a minor girl to go with him and upon
reaching the destination, dragged the girl to a secluded
area and there raped her
Craft vs Fraud
- When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or
machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the act of the
accused in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim
constitutes craft
DISGUISE
- Resorting to any device to conceal identity
- Wore masks, cover faces, wear constabulary uniforms
- The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to
conceal his identity
Paragraph 15: take advantage of superior strength or
employed means to weaken defense
Advantage: use purposely excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the person attacked
One who attacks with passion and obfuscation does not
take advantage of his superior strength
No use of superior strength: when the attack was made on
the victim alternately, one after the other
An attack of a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed
and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of
abuse that superiority which his sex and the weapon used
in the act afforded to him and from which the woman was
unable to defend herself.
No abuse of superior strength in parricide against the wife
o Generally accepted that the husband is physically
stronger than the wife
The mere fact of there being superiority of numbers is not
sufficient evidence of relative physical strength
necessary
Depends on the age, size and strength of the parties
 Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of
superior strength
There is no abuse when the accused did not cooperate in
such a way as to secure advantage from their combined
strength.
Numerical superiority does not always mean abuse of
superiority.
There is abuse of superior strength when weapon used is
out of proportion to the defense available to the offended
party.
Simultaneous attack by two persons with revolvers against
a defenseless person is aggravated by superior strength
It must appear that the accused cooperated together in
some way designed to weaken the defense.
When there is an allegation of treachery, superior strength
is absorbed.
o Inherent in treachery
By a band vs abuse of superior strength
- In superior strength, what is taken into account is not the
number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed, but
their relative physical might
If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band, it is
reasonable to hold that band should not be treated
separately and distinct from abuse of superior strength
Intoxicating the victim to weaken defense = means
employed to weaken defense
o If the state of intoxication is such that the victim
cannot put up any sort of defense = treachery
Means to weaken the defense absorbed in treachery
Paragraph 16: Act committed with treachery
Basis: means and ways employed in the commission of the
crime
Treachery: when the offender commits any crime against
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
Treachery means that the offended party was not given any
opportunity to make a defense.
Rules regarding treachery:
1) Applicable only to crimes against the person
2) Means, methods, or forms need not insure
accomplishment of the crime insure its execution
3) Mode of attack must be consciously adopted based
on employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution which tend directly and specially
Does not depend upon the result thereof but upon the
means itself
Treachery cannot be presumed.
o Should be proven fully
No treachery
o When no witness who could have seen how the
deceased was shot
o Attack was frontal, indicating that the victim was
not totally without opportunity to defend himself
o Exception
When the victim was tied with many
wounds and head cut off treachery
may be considered though no witness
saw the killing
Killing of a child even if the manner attack
is not shown
The mode of the attack must be consciously adopted.
1) Accused must make preparation to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard
for the person attacked to defend himself
2) Mode of attack must be thought of by the offender,
and must not spring from the unexpected turn of
events
Treachery:
- Shooting the victim at a distance
- Deliberate surprise attack on the victims
- Victim reduced to helplessness
- Victim was tied
- Many accused
- Attack was deliberate, sudden, and unexpected
- Victim clearly not in a position to defend himself
Not present:
- Frontal encounter
- Not made in a sudden unexpected manner
- Accused did not camouflage their hostile intentions
Treachery cannot be appreciated where there is nothing in
the record to show the accused had pondered upon the
mode or method to insure the killing of the deceased or
remove or diminish any risk to himself that might arise
from the defense that the deceased might make.
If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no treachery,
even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it
was not deliberately sought by the accused, but was purely
accidental.
When the attack was impulsively done, no treachery.
o Reason: accused could not have made preparation
for the attack
Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk
- Victim asleep
- Victim half-awake or just awakened
- Victim grappling or being held
- Attacked from behind
Requisites:
1) At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself
2) Offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method, or form of attack employed by him
There is treachery when the offenders made a deliberate
surprise or unexpected attack on the victim.
There is no treachery when the victim was already
defending himself when he was attacked by the accused.
When the accused gave the decease a chance to prepare,
there was no treachery.
No treachery when the attack is preceded by a warning.
Calling attention of the victim not necessarily a warning
No treachery when shooting is preceded by heated
discussion.
Killing a child is characterized by a treachery because the
weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in the
absence of any danger to the accused.
 Intent to kill is not necessary in murder with treachery.
Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to face.
o Offended party was unable to prepare himself for
his defense
Attack from behind is not always alevosia.
It depends upon the circumstance of the case.
Since the entire assault from the beginning up to the that
time was continuous and that the assault was begun
without treachery, the SC did not consider the second
wound as having been inflicted with treachery.
If non continuous, there is treachery when the accused was
able to think and even to make preparation for a method or
form of attack that insured the execution of the crime
without risk to himself.
RULES:
- When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be
present at the beginning of the assault.
- When the assault was not continuous, it is sufficient that
treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was
given.
It makes no difference whether or not the victim was the
same person whom the accused intended to kill.
Treachery: means, methods or forms of attack are employed by
the offender to make it impossible or hard for the offended
party to put up any sort of resistance.
Abuse of superior strength: offender does not employ means,
methods or forms; he only takes advantage of his superior
strength
Means employed to weaken the defense: offender employs
means but the means employed only materially weakens the
resisting power of the offended party.
When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against
all the offenders.
If the intervention of other persons did not directly and
especially insure the execution of the crime without risk to
the accused, there is no treachery.
In murder, it is improper to consider, in addition to
qualifying treachery, that circumstance, the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
since the latter is necessarily included in the former.
Nighttime inherent in treachery
o When nighttime is not absorbed : tying the victim
Craft is included in and absorbed by treachery. (used to
insure the commission of the crime)
Disregard of age and sex may be deemed included in
treachery.
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation
because with passion or obfuscation, accused loses his
reason and self-control.
Paragraph 17: Means be employed or circumstances brought
about add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
Basis: reference to the means employed
Ignominy: moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical
injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder
Example: rape in front of husband
Must tend to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.
Paragraph 18: Crime be committed after an unlawful entry
Basis: means and ways employed to commit the crime
Unlawful entry: when entrance is effected by a way not
intended for the purpose
Entrance, not escape
Entering through window
Reason: one who acts, not respecting the walls erected by mean
to guard their property and provide for their personal safety,
shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law
punishes him with more severity.
Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling
Paragraph 19: Means employed include a wall, roof, floor,
door or window be broken.
Basis: reference to means and ways employed to commit the
crime
Not necessary that the offender should have entered the
building.
What aggravates the liability of the offender is the breaking
of a part of the building as a means to the commission of
the crime
To effect entrance only
Paragraph 20: (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age
or (2) by means of motor vehicle, airships or other similar
means
1) To repress the frequent practice resorted to by
professional criminals to avail themselves of minors
taking advantage of their irresponsibility
2) Intended to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and
flee and abscond once the same is committed
If the motor vehicle was used only in the escape, it should
not be aggravating.
Other similar means: motorized vehicles or other efficient
means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane
Paragraph 21: Wrong done be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission
Basis: ways 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
Requisites of Cruelty
1) Injury caused be deliberately increased by causing
other wrong
2) Other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the
purpose of the offender
Accused at the time of the commission of the crime had a
deliberate intention to prolong the suffering of the victim
Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely
intended by offender
Cruelty cannot be presumed.
Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty
No cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim was
dead.
Ignominy involves moral suffering while cruelty refers to
physical suffering.
ARTICLE 15: ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
- Those must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime
and the other conditions attending its commission
Basis: nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission
Alternative circumstances:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender
Relationship
- Shall be taken into consideration when the offended party
is the
o Spouse
o Ascendant
o Descendant
o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister
o Relative by affinity within the second degree
- Other relationships
o Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter
o Adopted parent and adopted child
- Duty of the stepmother to bestow upon her stepdaughter a
mothers affection, care and protection; crime against
stepdaughter aggravating
- Law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when
it is aggravating.
- Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property (by
analogy to the provisions of Article 332)
o Robbery
o Usurpation
o Fraudulent insolvency
o Arson
o Article 332: no criminal but only civil liability
exempting:
Theft
Swindling
Malicious mischief
- Aggravating in crimes against persons where the offended
party is a relative of a higher degree or the offender and
the offended party are relatives of the same level
- If the crime against persons is any of the serious physical
injuries, the fact that the offended party is a descendant of
the offender is not mitigating. aggravating
- Less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries
o Mitigating: if the offended party is a relative
of a lower degree of the offender
o Aggravating: if the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree of the offender
- Homicide or murder aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of a lower degree
- Trespass to dwelling mitigating
- Neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an
element of the offense
o Parricide
o Adultery
o Concubinage
- Crime against chastity always aggravating
o Why? Nature and effect of the crime
committed; shocking
- Rule may be different because of the other condition
attending the commission of the crime
Intoxication
- Mitigating:
o if not habitual
o if not subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony
- Aggravating:
o Intoxication is habitual
o Intentional
When the offender drinks fully
knowing its effects, to find the liquor
a stimulant to commit a crime or a
means to suffocate any remorse
- Drunkenness mitigating if accidental
- The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary
that it be a matter of daily occurrence.
- Mitigating
o At the time of the commission of the act, he
has taken such quantity of alcoholic drink as
to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain
degree of control
o Not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
commit the felony
- Offenders mental faculties must be affected by
drunkenness
- Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in
the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be
non-habitual or unintentional.
- Code says nothing about the degree of intoxication needed
to mitigate
o Obviously: to produce such an effect, it must
diminish the agents capacity to know the
injustice of his acts, and his will to act
accordingly.
o It must be first established that the liquor
taken by the accused was of such quantity to
have blurred his reason and deprived him of
self-control.
o If he was aware of everything and was able to
give a detailed account, intoxication is not
mitigating.
- A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by
excessive use of intoxicating drinks.
o Not necessary that it be continuous or by daily
occurrence
- Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime
- Reasons
o Mitigating exercise of will power is
impaired
o Aggravating intentional to bolster his
courage to commit a crime
o Aggravating (habitual) constant use of
liquor lessens the individual resistance to evil
 thoughts and undermines the will power o Securities Law
making himself a potential evildoer o Election Code
- Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and (Corporations may be fined for certain violations of their
obfuscation are not to be taken separately. provisions.)
Degree of instruction and education of the offender Only the officers of the corporation who participated either
- Low degree mitigating as principals by direct participation or principals by
o Exception: induction or by cooperation or as accomplice in the
crimes against property such as commission of an act punishable by law are liable.
estafa, theft, robbery, arson Since a corporation or partnership can only act through its
crimes against chastity such as rape officers and their agents, the president or manager can be
and adultery held criminally liable for the violation of a law by the entity.
- High degree aggravating Corporation can be a passive subject of a crime.
- Lack of instruction mitigating Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject.
o Did not finish even the first grade in o They have no rights that may be injured.
elementary school
o Must be proved by the defense ARTICLE 17: PRINCIPALS
o Exception: murder (to kill is forbidden by The following are considered principals:
natural law) 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
- Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it
are necessary. 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
o Does not fully realize the consequences of his by another act without which it would not have been
criminal act accomplished
- Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender Example:
availed himself or took advantage of it in committing the A by promise of price and reward induced B to kill C. D,
crime. owner of the only motor boat, offered to transport B to the
island. B alone killed C.
ARTICLE 16: WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE o A directly induced B
GRAVE AND LESS GRAVE FELONIES: o B took direct part in the execution
1. Principals o D cooperated in the commission of the crime by
2. Accomplices another act without which the commission of the
3. Accessories offense would not have been accomplished.
LIGHT FELONIES: Paragraph 1: Principals by direct participation
1. Principals Personally execute the act constituting the crime
2. Accomplices Two or more persons may take direct part in the execution
Division rests upon the very nature of their participation in of the act.
the commission of the crime. Requisites:
When a crime is committed by many, without being equally o They participated in the criminal resolution
shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is imposed o They carried out their plan and personally took
upon each and every one of them. part in its execution by acts which directly tended
Reason why accessories are not liable for light felonies: to the same end.
o Social wrong and individual prejudice is so small First Requisite
that penal sanction is deemed not necessary for - When they were in conspiracy at the time of the
accessories. commission of the crime
Active Subject Passive Subject - Conspiracy: exists when two or more persons come to an
Criminal Injured party agreement concerning a commission of a felony and decide
Article 16 enumerates the active subjects to commit it.
Only natural persons can be active subject of crime because - Conspiracy contemplated in the first requisite is not a
o An artificial or juridical person cannot act with felony, but only a manner of incurring criminal liability.
malice or negligence - To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of
o A juridical person cannot commit a crime in which conspiracy: He performed an overt act in the furtherance of
a willful purpose or a malicious intent is required. the conspiracy by:
o Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and o Actively participating in the actual commission
other deprivation of liberty can be executed only of the crime
against individuals. o Lending moral assistance to his co-
Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain special conspirators by being present at the scene of
laws. the crime
o Corporation Code
o Public Service
 o Exerting moral ascendency over the rest of
the conspirators as to move them to executing
the conspiracy
- Agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a
party to a conspiracy
- Conspiracy transcends companionship.
- Conspiracy exists when, if at the time of the commission of
the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its execution.
- Conspiracy arises at the very instant the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it.
- Sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert
pursuant to the same objective
- No formal agreement among the conspirators is necessary.
- Sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused
manifested their acts a common intent or desire to attack
so that the act of one accused becomes the act of all.
- Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence.
- When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable
only for the act performed by him.
- The cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance
which is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not
possible without previous knowledge of the criminal
purpose.
- In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a
crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
directed against one is individual and not collective, and
each of the participants is liable only for the acts
committed by himself.
- Spontaneity rules out conspiracy.
- Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common
purpose and were united in its execution.
- Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission
of the crime is sufficient to create joint responsibility.
- Active cooperation by all of the offenders in the
perpetration of the crime will also create joint
responsibility.
- Simultaneity per se is not a badge of conspiracy. It is not
sufficient that the attack is joint and simultaneous; it is
necessary that the assailants are animated by one of the
same purpose.
- Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common
criminal intent also creates joint responsibility.
- Having been the instigator and aggressor
o The criminal act started by him
o He is liable not only for his own acts, but also
for the acts of those who aided him
- Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and
lending moral support thereto, also create joint
responsibility with the material executors.
- Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is committed by a
band.
- Accused fled from the scene of the flight and did not take
part therein, he is not criminally liable.
- There may me conspiracy even if there is no evident
premeditation on the part of the accused.
- When conspiracy is proven
o Conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their
participation
o Degree of participation is immaterial
o Responsible for the consequences that might
ensue
- A conspirator is not liable for anothers crime which is not
an object of the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and
logical consequence thereof.
- A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted
before the crime was committed by the others, is not
criminally liable.
- When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the
offense is not present as regards one of the conspirators is
immaterial.
- In the crime of murder where treachery is an element of
the crime, all the offenders must at least have knowledge
of the employment of treachery at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
- There could no conspiracy to commit and offense through
negligence.
Second requisite
- Culprits carried out their plan and personally took part in its
execution, by acts which directly tended to the same end
- One serving as guard to the conspiracy is a principal by
direct participation
- When the second requisite is lacking, there is only
conspiracy.
Paragraph 2: directly force or induce others to commit it
(Principal by induction)
Autores per induccion
Becomes liable only when the principal by direct
participation committed the act induced.
Two ways of becoming principal by induction
o Directly forcing
o Directly inducing
Two ways of directly forcing
o By using irresistible force
o By causing uncontrollable fear
(no conspiracy in these cases)
Two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime:
o By giving price, or offering reward or promise
o By using words of command
Requisites
o The inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime
o Such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor.
Without such inducement the crime
would not have been committed
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be
so influential in producing the criminal act that without it,
the act would not have been performed.
Words of command: Requisites:
o One uttering the words of command must have
the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime
 o That the one who made the command must have One who, by acts of negligence, without which negligent
an ascendency or influence over the person who acts the commission of the crime could not have been
acted. accomplished, is a co-principal.
o That the words used must be so direct, so The act of the principal by indispensable cooperation
efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical should be different from the act of the principal by direct
or moral coercion. participation.
o The words of command must be uttered prior to
the commission of the crime ARTICLE 18: ACCOMPLICES
o The material executor of the crime has no personal Persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in
reason to commit the crime. the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
Ascendency or influence is not necessary when there is acts.
conspiracy. The participation of an accomplice presupposed the
One who planned the crime committed by another is a commission of the crime by the principal by direct
principal by inducement. participation.
If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order Concurrence of the will of the accomplice with the will of
given, the inducement is not material and not the the author of the crime
determining cause. In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be
Principal by inducement vs offender who made proposal to considered that of an accomplice rather than of a principal.
commit a felony An accomplice does not enter into a conspiracy with the
Principal by inducement Offender who made principal by direct participation. He does not have previous
proposal to commit a felony agreement or understanding with the principal to commit a
There is inducement to commit a crime. crime. But he participates to a certain point in the common
Becomes liable only when Mere proposal to commit a criminal design.
the crime is committed by felony is punishable in Accomplice gets a penalty one degree lower than that
the principal by direct treason or rebellion (The provided for the principal in a consummated felony.
participation person to whom proposal is Accomplice vs Conspirator
made should not commit the Conspirator Accomplice
crime) Know and agree with the criminal design
Inducement involves any Involve only treason or Know the criminal intention Come to know the criminal
crime rebellion because they themselves intention after the principals
have decided have reached the decision
Effects of acquittal of principal by direct participation upon the and only the do they agree
liability or principal by inducement to cooperate in its execution
1. Conspiracy is negative by the acquittal of co- Decide that a crime should Merely concur with it; do not
defendant. be committed decide whether a crime
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the should be committed; assent
commission of a crime without first being shown that to the plan and cooperate in
the crime has been actually committed by another. its accomplishment
3. If one charged as principal by direct participation is Authors of the crime Instruments who perform
acquitted because he acted without criminal intent or acts not essential to the
malice, his acquittal is not a ground for the acquittal of perpetration of the offense
the principal by inducement. Requisites
o There be community of design (knowing the
Paragraph 3: Principals by indispensable cooperation (those criminal design of the principal by direct
who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another participation, he concurs with the latter in his
act which without such act the offense would not have been purpose)
committed) o Cooperates in the execution of the offense by
Cooperate: desire or wish in common a thing previous or simultaneous acts with the intention of
Requisites: supplying material or moral aid in the execution of
o Participation in the criminal resolution (either the crime in an efficacious way
anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose o There be a relation between the acts done by the
and intention immediately before the commission principal and those attributed to the person
of the crime charged) charged as accomplice
o Cooperation in the commission of the offense by First requisite
performing another act, without which it would - Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a
not have been accomplished) principal by direct participation
- Principal originates the criminal design
- The cooperation which the law punishes is the assistance
which is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not
possible without previous knowledge of the criminal
purpose.
- Taxicab who knowing his co-accused were going to make a
hold-up, permitted them to use the taxicab driven by him in
going to a store where his said co-accused staged the hold-
up and waited for them until after the hold-up, is an
accomplice in the crime of robbery.
- How an accomplice acquires knowledge of the criminal
design of the principal
o When the principal informs or tell the
accomplice of the formers criminal purpose
o When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of
the principal
- Concurrence with the criminal purpose of another may
make one a co-principal before the actual commission of
the crime both of them agreed and decided to commit it
- No knowledge of the criminal design not an accomplice
- 2 elements:
o That he takes part in the execution of the
crime by previous or simultaneous acts
o That he intends by said acts to commit or take
part in the execution of the crime
- The community of design need not be to commit the crime
actually committed. It is sufficient if there was a common
purpose to commit a particular crime and that the crime
actually committed was a natural or probable consequence
of the intended crime.
Second Requisite
- Accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct
participation
- The cooperation of an accomplice is only necessary, not
indispensable
- If there is conspiracy, nature of cooperation becomes
immaterial.
- Examples
o By previous acts
Lending dagger or pistol to the
murderer knowing the latters
criminal purpose
Pharmacist, knowing the criminal
propose of another, furnishes him
the drug which je will put his victim
to sleep
o By simultaneous acts
Defendant who held one of the
hands of the victim and tried to take
away the latters revolver
- The cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a
conspiracy.
- The accomplice merely supplies the principal with material
or moral aid without conspiracy with the latter.
- The wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against
persons should have not caused the death of victim.
- Rules
o The one who had the original criminal design
is the person who committed the resulting
crime
o The accomplice, after concurring in the
criminal purpose of the principal, cooperates
by previous or simultaneous acts.
o The accomplice in crime against persons does
not inflict the more or most serious wounds.
- A gave a fist blow on the face of B. Seeing what A had done
to B, C stabbed B to death. Is A an accomplice?
o No
o C had the original design (wound inflicted by C
being the more serious)
o A could not have concurred in the criminal
purpose of C, because A was the first to strike
B and A did nothing more after C had stabbed.
- The responsibility of the accomplice is to be determined by
acts of aid and assistance either prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of the crime, rendered knowingly for
the principal.
Third Requisite
- There must be a relation between the criminal act of the
principal and the act of the one charged as accomplice.
- An accomplice may be liable for a crime different from that
which the principal committed.
Participation is not indispensable as in the case of a co-
principal by cooperation.
ARTICLE 19: ACCESSORIES
Do not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in
the commission of the felony but with knowledge of the
crime
3 ways
o By profiting from the effects of the crime
o By concealing the body, effects, or instruments of
the crime in order to prevent its discovery
o By assisting in the escape of the principal provided
he acts with abuse of his public functions or the
principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder on
an attempt to the life of the Chief Executive or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime
Important words and phrase
1. Having knowledge: An accessory must have knowledge
of the commission of the crime, and having that
knowledge, he took part subsequent to its commission
a. Mere possession of stolen property does not
make the accused an accessory where the
thief was already convicted
b. Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been
committed is not enough
c. Knowledge of the commission of crime may
be acquired subsequent to the acquisition of
stolen property.
d. Knowledge may be established by
circumstantial evidence.
2. Commission of the crime: crime committed by the
principal must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
a. Where it is doubtful not accessory
 3. Without having participated therein either as principals or that the principal
or accomplices is known to be
4. Take part subsequent to its commission: accessory habitually guilty of
takes part after the crime has been committed some other crime
Specific Acts 2. Habitually guilty of some
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to other crime previously
profit by the effects of the crime punished three times for
a. The accessory should not take the property less serious physical injuries
without the consent of the principal; If he 3. Accessory must have
took it without the consent, he is not an knowledge of the principal
accessory but a principal in the crime of theft. being habitually guilty of
b. Profiting: sharing in the reward some other crime or is
c. Assisting: sells the same for the thief known
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to One who kept silent with regard to the crime he witnessed
prevent its discovery to prevent its discover is not an accessory.
a. Body of crime: corpus delicti (a specific Accessories liability is subordinate and subsequent.
offense was in fact committed by someone) o Where the alleged was acquitted, it is neither
b. There must be an attempt to hide the body of proper nor possible to convict the defendant as
the crime accessory
c. It is not the principal who committed the o Exemption: when the criminally liable was
crime that is concealed acquitted due to exempting circumstance
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting the escape of the Even if the principal is still unknown or at large, accessory
principal may be held responsible.
a. Two classes of accessories Trial of an accessory may proceed without awaiting the
i. Public: with abuse of his public office result of the separate charge against the principal.
1. Requisites: It is not necessary that the principal should be first declared
a. Accessory is a guilty before the accessory can be made liable as such.
public officer The arraignment, trial and conviction of accessory during
b. Harbors, conceals, the pendency of a separate case against the principal are
or assists in the null and void.
escape of the o But when the principal is not yet apprehended, the
principal accessory may be prosecuted and convicted
c. Public officer acts The participation of the accessory in all cases takes place
with abuse of his after the commission of the crime.
public functions
d. Crime committed PARAGRAPH 20: ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM
by the principal is CRIMINAL LIABILITY
any crime, provided Based on the ties of blood and the preservation of the
it is not a light cleanliness of ones name which compels one to conceal
felony crimes committed by relatives
ii. Private persons: principal is guilty of An accessory is exempt from the criminal liability, when the
treason, parricide, murder, or an principal is his
attempt to the life of the Chief o Spouse
Executive or who is known to be o Ascendant
habitually guilty of some other crime o Descendant
1. Requisites: o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
a. Accessory is a o Relative by affinity within the second degree
private person Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the
b. Harbors, conceals principal is related to him if such accessory
or assists in the o Profited by the effects of the crime
escape of the o Assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the
author of the crime crime
c. Crime committed
Only accessories under paragraph 2 and 3 of Article are
by principal:
exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the
treason, parricide,
principals
murder, and
attempt against the
life of the President