AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES

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

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute

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

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating

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

4. The circumstances which consist in the material

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

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paano kung di ma-raise ng defense Seeerrr

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

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

determined not from the caption or preamble of
the information nor from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated,
they being conclusions of law, but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information ...
it is not the technical name given by the Fiscal
appearing in the title of the information that
determines the character of the crime but the
facts alleged in the body of the Information.”
 Simply put, the failure to specifically state the
allegations in the information which affects the liability of
the accused, like aggravating circumstances, will not be
cured by accused’s failure to raise objections on the said
defect. The reason is that it violates the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and character of accusations
against him. That is an elementary requirement of due
process in criminal cases, sanctioned by no less than the
fundamental law itself. Corollary to that principle, it follows
that allegations in the complaint or information controls
the evidentiary matters that must be proven during trial.
You are not allowed to introduce and prove matters that
were not mentioned at the outset in the criminal charge
against the accused. Klaro???? Ahright!
Kinds of aggravating
circumstances
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances
Those that can generally apply to all felonies
under the Revised Penal Code (exemption
would be Art. 365, RPC).

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

4, 5, 6 ,7 , 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except “by
means of motor vehicle”, are generic
aggravating circumstances.
2. Specific aggravating circumstances.
Those that apply to particular crimes only.
 List of specific aggravating
circumstance.
1. In the crime of violation of domicile under par.
2, Art. 128, RPC, if the same committed in
nighttime or if the papers and other articles
seized in the illegal search and seizure were not
returned immediately after so demanded by the
owner/legal occupant of the dwelling;

2. Interruption of religious worship (in case there

be violence or threats under par. 2, Art. 132,
RPC)
 List of specific aggravating
circumstance.
3. Direct assault (if weapon is used, or the
offender is himself/herself a public officer or
employee, or when the offender lays hands
upon a person in authority, Art. 148, RPC);

4. Grave threats (if made in writing, or

made thru a middleman, Art. 282, RPC);
 List of specific aggravating
circumstance
5. Slavery (if committed for the purpose of
assigning the offended party to some immoral
traffic, par. 2, Art. 272, RPC);

6. Robbery with violence against or

intimidation of persons (if committed in an
uninhabited place or band, use of
loose/unlicensed firearm on a street, road, or
alley under Art. 295, RPC)
 List of specific aggravating
circumstance
7. Robbery with force upon things (if
committed in an uninhabited place and by
band, Art. 300, RPC).
 3. Qualifying Aggravating
circumstance
They change the nature of the crime when
it was originally planned or executed. It
“qualifies” the act or series of acts into a
different crime. See Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code (From a mere homicide into
murder).
4. Special Aggravating Circumstance.
Those which arise under special conditions to
increase the penalty of the offense, or to
render the same unaffected by ordinary
mitigating circumstances. Some special
aggravating circumstances in RPC are the
following:
1. Complex crime under Art. 48, RPC;
2. Objective/extraordinary error in personae
under Art. 49, RPC;
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency
under Art. 62 par. 5, RPC;
4. Quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC.
Special aggravating circumstances under
Special Penal Laws.
 Section 29, R.A. 10591
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of
a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance: Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that
prescribed in the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty
for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the
crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the use of a
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to
that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to
the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other
special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection
with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
or attempted coup d’ etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
This part of Section 29 of R.A. 10591 is
considered a special aggravating
circumstance
“Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty
which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section for
illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the
use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding
section for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in addition to the
penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.”
 Section 25, R.A. 9165
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by
an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous
Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any
law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use
of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a
crime by an offender, and the application of the
penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code
shall be applicable.
 According to Judge Marlou Campanilla, the said
provision of R.A. 9165 should have been labeled as
“special aggravating circumstance” rather than
qualifying. This is not a qualifying circumstance since
the presence thereof will not require the imposition of
a different penalty (like that in case of qualifying
circumstances under Art. 248 that makes an act of
killing into murder instead of a mere homicide). Hence,
the only effect of this circumstance is that it will
require the application of the penalty provided or
prescribed for the crime committed, in its maximum
period, regardless of the presence of mitigating
circumstance/s.
Generic aggravating Circumstances under Art.
14, RPC.
Par. 1., That advantage be taken by
the offender of public position

Here, it is important that the accused used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The basis of perversity of the offender as

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

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

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

Age of the offended party.

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

A planned to kill B, a retired judge who is

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

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

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

2. When there exist a relationship between

the offended party and the offender (People
vs. Valencia, CA 43 O.G. 3740);
DWELLING
 Concept
A dwelling includes dependencies,
staircase, and enclosures under the house. It
is not necessary that the house is owned by
the offended party. It may include a room in a
boarding house, for home is that which the
law seeks to protect or uphold whether the
dweller is a lessee, a boarder, or a bed spacer
(People vs. Magnaye, May 30, 1951).
 A dwelling must be a building or structure,
exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
combination of a house and a store or a
market stall where the victim slept is not a
dwelling (People vs. Magnaye, supra).
 What is included in the term
dwelling?
We already answer this, although to be
particular, in the case of People vs. Rios, G.R.
No. 132636, June 19, 2000, the SC made
mention that dwelling includes dependencies.
 What now is included in the term
“dependencies”?
Let us check Art. 301, RPC, heto sabi niyang provision
na yan:

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

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

However, Balansi doctrine is not applicable

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

Dwelling shall not be appreciated where

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

2. When both the offender and the offended

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

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

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

In case provocation on the part of the

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

REASON: When it is the victim who has

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

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

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

General rule: Note that this paragraph of Art.

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

Exemption: The case of People vs. Verdad,

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

Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of

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

Facts: The offended party as living in the

house of the accused, her parents having entrusted
her to the care of said accused. One day, at about
6:30 in the evening, while the offended party was
standing in front of a store watching some children
who were playing, the accused approached her,
took her by the arm and forcibly led her to an
isolated toilet, hidden from public view by some tall
grasses, and once in the spot, he intimidated her
with knife and through the use of force and
violence succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with her.
 Issue: Whether or not the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence
may be appreciated against the accused.
 Held: There is no showing that the
accused was able to commit the crime by
abusing the confidence reposed in him by the
offended party. The accused betrayed the
confidence reposed in him by the parents of the
girl. But this is not an aggravating circumstance.
It must be an abuse of confidence that
facilitated the commission of the crime which is
aggravating.
People vs. Alqueza, 51 Phil. 817, 819-
820.
We take it that in this particular case the fact that
the accused lived in the same house as the offended
party is not enough, in itself, to hold that there is such
aggravating circumstance, for after all, that house did not
belong to the offended party (pp. 61, 62, t. s. n.). As this
court said in the case of United States vs. Cabaya Cruz (4
Phil., 252), it might serve to describe the accused's
conduct as disgraceful, but not as an abuse of confidence,
for which it is required to show what was the confidence
reposed in the accused, and that it facilitated the
commission of the crime, in order that it might be judged
whether or not he had abused such confidence
Abuse of confidence must facilitate the
commission of the crime.
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
Accused-appellant Salvador Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann
Arrojado are first cousins, their fathers being brothers. The victim’s
father, Alberto Arrojado, who was living in Canada, suffered a stroke
for which reason he decided to come home to Roxas City and spend
the remainder of his days there. The victim accompanied her father to
the Philippines. They eventually settled in a house in Barangay Tanque,
Roxas City, where they lived on the financial support of the victim’s
sister Asuncion, who continued to live in Canada, and her brother
Buenaventura, who lived in Manila.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library
Starting February 15, 1996, Accused-appellant lived with the victim
and her father. He helped care for the victim’s father, for which he was
paid a P1,000.00 monthly salary.
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
In the early morning of June 1, 1996, Accused-appellant went
to the house of his cousin, Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo, and reported
that the victim had committed suicide. In response, Erlinda, together
with her husband Romulo Magdaluyo and her father Teodorico
Arrojado, went with accused-appellant to the house in Barangay
Tanque where they found the victim dead. The victim, who was
bloodied, was lying on her left side facing the bedroom door with her
hands clasped together. On her bed was a rosary and a crucifix. Near
her was a knife. Erlinda recognized it to be the knife kept in the
kitchen. Erlinda also noticed that the electric fan was turned on full
blast, while all the windows were closed except the window on the
east side which was slightly open. As he went to the other room,
where the victim’s father stayed, Accused-appellant told Erlinda that
he was afraid he might be suspected as the one responsible for the
victim’s death.
People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492,
January 31, 2001.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence,
however, is present in this case. For this aggravating circumstance to
exist, it is essential to show that the confidence between the parties
must be immediate and personal such as would give the accused some
advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. The
confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the
crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that
the former would not abuse said confidence. In this case, while the
victim may have intimated her fear for her safety for which reason she
entrusted her jewelry and bank book to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo,
her fears were subsequently allayed as shown by the fact that she took
back her personal effects from Erlinda. Thinking that accused-appellant
would not do her any harm, because he was after all her first cousin,
the victim allowed accused-appellant to sleep in the same room with
her father and left the bedroom doors unlocked.
Abuse of confidence is inherent in the
following instances:
1. Qualified seduction (Art. 334, RPC);
2. Qualified theft (art. 310, RPC);
3. Estafa by conversion or
misappropriation (Art. 315, RPC);
4. Malversation (Art. 217, RPC).
 Obvious Ungratefulness
Basis of aggravation: The commission of
the crime in an utter indifference to the
generosity and kindness of the victim.

Unlike in abuse of confidence, duration of

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

When the victim was suddenly attacked

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

The circumstance may be appreciated if the

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

Basis of aggravation: Greater perversity of

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

Note also that this can be appreciated

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

It is aggravating even if no public function is being

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

If the public authorities are not performing

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

Note also that in this aggravating

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

Cemeteries are not included in the concept of

places dedicated to religious worship.

Lastly, discharge of religious worship or rites

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

There are three (3) distinct aggravating

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

2. When the offender took advantage

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

It is necessary that the commission of the

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

Although the crime was committed during nighttime,

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

It cannot be appreciated as an aggravating

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

EXN: If they are based on separate and entirely distinct

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

Uninhabited place is an aggravating

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

Nota buene: 1. The 4 men contemplated in

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

3. This agg circ is not applicable in crimes against

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

4. The Code does not define or require any

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

This is a generic aggravating circumstance but

considered as qualifying under Art. 248, RPC.

Reason for aggravation: In the midst of a

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

As such, development of an engine trouble

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

If present in the same factual

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

It means men equipped with weapon (basta

more than one na armed person).

Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is

sufficient to constitute this aggravating
circumstance.
 Aid of armed men requires that:
1. That the armed men are mere
accomplices who take part in minor capacity;
either directly or indirectly (People vs. Lozano,
G.R. No. 137370-71, September 29, 2003); and
2. That the accused availed himself of their
aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
 As such, this aggravating circumstance
should not be appreciated where aremed men
acted in concert to ensure the commission of
the crime (People vs. Carino, G.R. No. 13117,
June 15, 2004)
 Limitations on its applications
1. When both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed;

2. When the accused as well as those who

cooperated with him in the commission of the
crime acted him under the same plan and for
the same purpose (Simply put, pag may
conspiracy, di to pwede! Ganyaaannnnnn!!!!!!!)
 Band vs. Armed Men
Band (Par.6) Armed Men (Par. 8)

As to their number

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

As to their liability

Band members are all principals Armed men are more accomplices

As to their liability

Band members Armed men are mere accomplices.

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

In case of multiple offenders and armed

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

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

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

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

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

In the circumstance of aid of persons who

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

Basis of aggravation: Greater perversity of

the offender as shown by his inclination to
crimes.
 Who is a recidivist?
He is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of RPC (People vs. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833,
May 6, 1991.)

Nota buene: A recidivist is entitled to the

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

• Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how

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

Second: It is not correct to assume that recidivism is twice

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

1. For an offense to which the law attaches an

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

(Nota beune: Also known as

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

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

3. That he is convicted for the new offense.

 Important considerations
If the second offense or crime is
punishable under a special law, it cannot be
considered under reiteration because Arts. 13,
14, and 15 of RPC are not applicable to special
law crimes.
 Important considerations
Take note that both recidivism and
reiteration are both generic aggravating
circumstances, hence, they can be offset by a
mitigating circumstance. Quasi recidivism, on
the other hand, is a special aggravating
circumstance, the presence of which, will
require the application of the penalty for the
present crime in its maximum period, regardless
of the presence of a mitigating circumstance
(except privileged mitigating circumstance).
“Previously punished,” explained.
• The phrase “previously punished” employed in
defining reiteration means that the accused
has served out the sentence for his previous
sentence.
 “Previous crimes and present,”
explained.
• If there is only one prior offense, it must be
punishable by a penalty equal or greater than
that for the by a penalty equal or greater that
that for the present crime. If there is more than
one prior crime, reiteration is present even if the
previous crime/s is/are punishable by a lesser
penalty that that ofr present crime. Thus, there is
reiteration even if the penalties for grave slander,
qualified trespass to dwelling, and robbery, which
have been served out, are less than that for the
crime of murder (People vs. Moto, G.R. No. L-
44660, January 11, 1979.
Can recidivism and reiteration be appreciated
at the same time against the same accused
based on single factual circumstances?
People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436,
March 24, 1995.

Answer: No!
Query: Why Ser?
 People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436,
March 24, 1995.
Appellant was previously convicted of ill-treatment by deed (Revised Penal
Code, Art. 266, Title Eight) and grave threats (Revised Penal Code, Art. 282, Title Nine).
He was convicted of homicide in the instant criminal case (Revised Penal Code, Art.
249, Title Eight). Inasmuch as homicide and ill-treatment by deed fall under Title Eight,
the aggravating circumstance to be appreciated against him is recidivism under Article
14[g] rather than reiteracion under Article 14(10) of the Revised Penal Code.

There is no reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the

previous offenses should not be embraced in the same title of the Code. While grave
threats fall in a title (Title Nine) different from homicide (Title Eight), still reiteracion
cannot be appreciated because such aggravating circumstance requires that if there is
only one prior offense, that offense must be punishable by an equal or greater penalty
than the one for which the accused has been convicted. Likewise, the prosecution has
to prove that the offender has been punished for the previous offense. There is no
evidence presented by the prosecution to that effect.
Appellant is convicted of homicide, appreciating in his favor the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation, which is offset by the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism.
 NOTA BUENE!

Try to be familiar with the rulings in the cases of

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

2. People vs. Real – Hindi pwedeng magsabay ang

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

Query: How about habituality and habitual

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

This is a generic aggravating circumstance.

 2. Reiteracion/Habituality (Par. 10,
RPC)
Where the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.

This is also a gerneric aggravating

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

One of the so-called special aggravating

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

Also one of the so-called special aggravating

circumstances, particularly termed as
“extraordinary special aggravating circumstance”
because it modifies the penalty for the offense
(meaning, it adds penalty to what is already
provided under the law!)
 Note that quasi-recidivism will be
appreciated regardless of whether the previous
crime, for which an accused is serving the
previous sentence at the time of the
commission of the crime charged, falls under
the RPC or under the special penal law (People
vs. Alicia, G.R. No. L-39176, January 22, 1980).
But the present crime must be a felony!
 Existence of habituality (Par. 10, Art.
14, RPC) and quasi-recidivism (Art.
160)
Ahmed’s humble opinion: Note that in
reiteracion, it is required that the accused had
duly served his sentence for his previous
conviction, or is legally considered to have done
so, in effect, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same
time be appreciated with reiteracion. Hence,
there is legal impossibility in appreciating
reiteracion and quasi-recidivism against the
same accused.
 Existence of Quasi-recidivism (Art.
160) and Multirecidivism (Par. 5, Art.
62, RPC)
Madali lang, Art. 160 provides for the answer.
Pwede silang mag co-exist! Let us check Art. 160, RPC. It
says:
”Art. 160. Commission of another crime during
service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty
Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person
who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by
final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence,
or while serving the same, shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony.”
 Par. 11, That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
 Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as
shown by the motivating power itself.
 This aggravating circumstance is either an
ordinary aggravating circumstance or a
qualifying circumstance in murder.

To consider this circumstance, the price

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

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

a vessel or intentional damage thereto; or

2. By use of any artifice involving great waste and

ruin; or

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

To easy to understand, I just want you to

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

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

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

It may be considered as ordinary

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

Nota buene: Of course, this rule is subject the

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

In aberration ictus, it can be appreciated against

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

Basis: Means employed in the commission

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

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

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

Note: Both treachery and craft(or disguise)

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

Note: Treachery here was used to facilitate

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

It cannot be considered where the accused

used disguise for fear of being attacked. It is
appreciated where it used to facilitate the
commission of the crime or to afford impunity, not
where the accused feared for being attacked by the
victim (US vs. Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 15,
1909).
 Instances where craft, fraud, and
disguise were appreciated by SC.
1. Craft was present when A asked permission
from his employer B, that he would go home to
Pangasinan at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon on the
day the felony (robbery with homicide) was
committed but went back at 10:00 o’clock in the
evening, pretending that he has failed to take a ride
to Pangasinan. The unsuspecting Chinese opened
the door and thereafter, A and his cohorts
perpetrated robbery with homicide (People vs.
Revotoc, G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981).
 2. There is fraud when A, took his
stepdaughter away and told her that she was to
be taken to the house of her grandmother but
instead she was taken to another house where
she was raped (People vs. De Leon, G.R. No.
26867, August 10, 1927).
 3. Disguise is present when A used a mask
in order to conceal his identity when
perpetrated the robbery.
 Par. 15, That:
1. Advantage be taken of superior strength; or
2. Means be employed to weaken the defense
of the victim.
 Basis: Means employed in the commission
of the crime.
 Advantage be taken of superior
strength
It means to deliberately use excessive force
that is out of proportion to the means for self-
defense available to the person (People vs.
Padilla, G.R. No 75508, June 10, 1994).
Important considerations in abuse of
superior strength.
1. One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation does not take advantage of superior
strength;

2. When quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal

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

4. When the victim was alternately attacked,

there is no abuse of superior strength (People
vs. Datun, G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997).
4. Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla
and vice versa.
 Means employed to weaken the
defense.
This circumstance is applicable only to
crimes against persons, and sometimes
against persons and property, such as robbery
with physical injuries or homicide (special
complex crimes with constituent crimes which
fall under crimes against persons).
 Important considerations
1. Where one, struggling with another,
suddenly throws a clock over the head of his
opponent and while in this situation, he
wounds or kills the victim, the aggravating
circumstance of employing means to weaken
the defense of a party may be appreciated
against the accused (US VS. Devela, G.R. No.
1542, April 9, 1904)
 2. One who, while fighting with another,
suddenly cast sand or dirt upon the latter eyes
and then wounds or kills the victim (People vs.
Siaotong, G.R. No. L-9242, March 29, 1957).

3. Intoxicating the victim, thereby materially

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

EXN to the third requirement: the case of Pipzzzz

vs. Rebucan G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011.
 Treachery, defined.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make (Art. 14, Par. 16, RPC).

Note: Treachery and evident premeditation, although

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

Treachery cannot be considered in

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

Treachery is also appreciated where the

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

However, treachery does not absorb evident premeditation

and vice versa.

Also, treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation

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

As a consequence, it is a requirement that the

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

Basis: Means and employed to commit the

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

The act of entering through the window,

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

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

Note: Also termed as aggravating

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

Note that there are two (2) aggravating

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

On the other hand, the rule on use of motor

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

May this aggravating circumstance be

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

Reyes: If the motor vehicle was used only

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

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

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

In that case, the SC mentioned that the motor vehicle

may be appreciated against the accused if the said
motor vehicle was used in going to the place of the
crime, carrying away the effects of the crime and in
facilitating the escape of the said accused. Paano yan
ireconcile sa sinabi mo Seeerr???
 Sagot
Take note that in this case, at the outset, the
vehicle was used in going to place where the
criminal acts would be committed (in Batac,
Ilocos Norte), in carrying the effects of the crime
(the body of the victim and the effects of the
crime of robbery with homicide), and in
facilitating the escape of several accused. Had it
been that the motor vehicle (in this case, jeep)
was used only to facilitate the escape of several
accused, then it is the humble submission of
yours truly that this aggravating circumstance
may not be sue against the several accused.
 People vs. Munoz, G.R. No. L-38016,
Sept. 10, 1981, and People vs. Mil, GR.
No. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979.
Where the use of the vehicle was incidental
only to the commission of the crime, it is not an
aggravating circumstance (like in case it was
used only to facilitate the commission of the
crime), it cannot be used to aggravate the
crime.
 Important considerations
It cannot be appreciated in cases of chance
encounters, accidental meetings, and in instances
of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property, death, or physical injuries.

REASON: The motor vehicle must be

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

Illustration: Jeep was used in carting away vicks vapor

rub. There is no aggravating circumstance of use of motor
vehicle here.

Reason: Estafa is committed by means of deceit or

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

It should be understood as referring to

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

2. That the other wrong be unnecessary in

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

Involves moral Involves physical

suffering. suffering.

Not a qualifying A qualifying

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

In addition, it is not mentioned under Art.

14 of the RPC.
-FIN-