4.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating circumstances 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.
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender
manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
a. motivating power itself;
b. the place of commission;
c.
the means and ways employed;
d. the time; or
e. the personal circumstances of the offender, or of
the offended party.
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all
crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20
except by means of motor vehicles.
2. SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular
crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21.
3. QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of the
crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying AC which qualify the
killing of person to murder.
4. INHERENT Those that must accompany the
commission of the crime.
GENERIC AC
The effect of a generic AC,
not
offset
by
any
mitigating circumstance, is
to increase the penalty
which should be imposed
upon the accused to the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.

QUALIFYING AC
The effect of a qualifying
AC is not only to give the
crime
its
proper
and
exclusive name but also to
place the author thereof in
such a situation as to
deserve no other penalty
than
that
specially
prescribed by law for said
crime.
A qualifying AC cannot be
offset by a mitigating
circumstance.

A
generic
aggravating
circumstance
may
be
compensated
by
a
mitigating circumstance.
According to the new rules, generic and qualifying
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to
be appreciated.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE

EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY
AC 1) which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law, or b) which are included by the law in defining
a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taken
into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62,
par. 1)
AC which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the offender or
b) from his private relations with the offended party, or c) from
any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the
liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are
aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with
insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard
of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age,
or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence
or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the
Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are

engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to

religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity
or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed
men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist 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 this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by
the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence
premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
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.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
19. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a
crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As
amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
for its commissions.
People v. Antonio (2002)
Facts: Kevin Paul, 7 yr old son of the victim Sergio was
lying on the bed beside his father Sergio in the bedroom when he
heard a window being opened and the sound of feet stepping on
the floor. Then someone kicked open the door to the bedroom.
Kevin saw Wilson Antonio carrying a shotgun. Wilson aimed his
gun at Sergio who was asleep on the bed and fired hitting Sergio
on the chest, shoulder and back. He was also hit on his left thigh.
Immediately after firing his gun, Wilson hurriedly left the room.
When the police arrived, Sergio was already dead.
Wilson
surrendered to the police after eluding arrest for more than 1 yr.
The trial court convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and
aggravated by the circumstance of evident premeditation,
dwelling and unlawful entry. The above
agrravating
circumstances were not alleged in the Information.
Held: Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, every Complaint or Information must state not only
the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances. This rule
may be given retroactive effect in the light of the well-established
rule that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
the time of their passage. The aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation, dwelling and unlawful entry, not having
been alleged in the Information, may not now be appreciated to
enhance the liability of Wilson.

People v. Suela (2002)

Facts: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and Edgardo
Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves, brandishing
handguns and knife barged into the room of Director Rosas who
was watching television together with his adopted son, Norman
and his friend Gabilo. They threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo
to give the location of their money and valuables, which they
eventually took. They dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon
Nerios instructions, Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused
the latters death . The trial court sentenced Edgar, Nerio and
Batocan to suffer the penalty of death appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of disguise which was not alleged in the
Information against the three.
Held: Following current Rules on Criminal Procedure
particularly Section 9 of the new Rule 110, and current
jurisprudence, the aggravating circumstance of disguise cannot be
appreciated against appellants. Inasmuch as the same was not
alleged in the Information, the aggravating circumstance of
disguise cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to
death notwithstanding the fact that the new rule requiring such
allegation was promulgated only after the crime was committed
and after the trial court has already rendered its Decision. It is a
cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused.
People v. Mendoza (2000)
Facts: Anchito and Marianito passed by appellant's
house and asked for a drink from appellant's wife, Emily. Anchito
began talking with Emily and they were about 4 rms-length from
Marianito when appellant suddenly appeared. Appellant hacked
Anchito on the nape, which prompted Marianito to flee out of fear
for his life. Anchito died in a kneeling position with hack wounds
at the back of the neck and body. Appellant voluntary surrendere.
The trial court ruled that voluntary surrender was "offset by the
aggravating circumstance of treachery.
Held: The trial court erred in ruling that voluntary
surrender was "offset by the aggravating circumstance of
treachery. Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a
generic aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to
characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the
imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot offset
voluntary surrender.
Par. 1. - THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER
OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
The public officer must use the influence, prestige or
ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he
realizes his purpose. The essence of the matter is presented in
the inquiry, did the accused abuse his office in order to commit
the crime?

LC convicted the accused of murder and took into consideration

the AC of taking advantage of public office because the accused is
a police officer.
Held: On the AC that the accused used his public
position as a policeman, it was held that the mere fact that he
was a member of the police force was insignificant to the attack.
He acted like a brother, instinctively. He pistol-whipped the
deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy and
so he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no
relevance.
People v. Gapasin (1994)
Facts: Gapasin was a member of the Phil. Constabulary.
He was issued a mission order to investigate a report regarding
the presence of unidentified armed men in one barrio. He was
informed that a certain Calpito had an unlicensed firearm. He shot
Calpito with the use of an armalite after seeing the latter walking
along the road. Gapasin was convicted of murder.
Held: The accused took advantage of his public position
because as a member of the PC, he committed the crime with an
armalite which was issued to him when he received his order.
People v. Villamor (2002)
Facts: Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on their way
home on board a motorcycle. Jerry was driving. As they neared a
junction, they heard a speeding motorcycle fast approaching from
behind. The brothers ignored the other motorcycle, which caught
up with them. As they were about to cross the bridge leading to
their home, gunshots rang out from behind them. They abruptly
turned the motorcycle around towards the direction of the gunfire.
The light of their motorcycle's headlamp fell on their attackers
aboard the second motorcycle. The assailants fired at them a
second time and fled. Jerry saw PO3 Villamor and Maghilom on
board the motorcycle behind them. Maghilom was driving the
motorcycle while Villamor was holding a short gun pointed at
them. Jerry sustained gunshot wounds but survived. Jelord,
however, died on the spot during the first gunburst.
Held: There was no showing that Villamor took
advantage of his being a policeman to shoot Jelord Velez or that
he used his "influence, prestige or ascendancy" in killing the
victim. Villamor could have shot Velez even without being a
policeman. In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated
the crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse
of public position. The Court cited the case of People v. Herrera,
where the Court emphatically said that the mere fact that
accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government issued
.38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish that he
misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
Par. 2. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT
OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.

When a public officer commits a common crime independent of

his official functions and does acts that are not connected with the
duties of his office, he should be punished as a private individual
without this AC.

a.

The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had army rifle
at the time is not sufficient to established that he misused his
public position in the commission of the crimes (People v. Pantoja)

c.
d.

Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is proven that he

has failed in his duties as such public officer, this circumstance
would warrant the aggravation of his penalty.
Taking advantage of public position, cannot be taken into
consideration in offenses where it is made by law an integral
element of the crime such as in malversation or in falsification of
documents committed by public officers.
People v. Capalac (1982)
Facts: Magaso stabbed Moises in a cockpit. The
aggressor attempting to escape was confronted by 2 brothers of
Moises, Jesus (deceased) and appellant Mario Capalac. Magaso,
seeing that he was cornered, raised his hands as a sign of
surrender. The brothers were not appeased. Mario proceeded to
pistol-whip Magaso and after he had fallen, Jesus stabs him. The

b.

REQUISITES:
That the public authority is engaged in the exercise
of his functions.
That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of his
functions is not the person against whom the crime is
committed.
The offender knows him to be a public authority.
His presence has not prevented the offender from
committing the criminal act.

PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY

A public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction,
that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute
the laws. The councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain etc.
are persons in authority. A school teacher, town municipal health
officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now considered a
person in authority.
Par. 2 is not applicable if committee din the presence of an
agent only such as a police officer.
AGENT

A subordinate public officer charged with the

maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life
and property, such as barrio policemen, councilmen, and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.

 Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is

aggravating provided that the commission of the crime was begun
in the dwelling.
Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal
detention.
It is not aggravating where the deceased was called
down from his house and he was murdered in the vicinity of his
house.
Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the
staircase and the enclosure under the house. If the deceased was
only about to step on the first rung of the ladder when he was
assaulted, the AC of dwelling will not be applicable.

The crime should not be committed against the public authority

or else it becomes direct assault.
Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public
authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the public
authority.
Par. 3. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1) WITH INSULT
OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED
PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS (a) RANK, (b) AGE, OR (c)
SEX, OR (2) THAT IS BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF
THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
PROVOCATION.
Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, which
can be considered single or together. If all the 4 circumstances
are present, they have the weight of one aggravating
circumstance only.
This circumstance (rank, age or sex) may be taken into account
only in crimes against person or honor.
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime,
the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or
age of the offended party.
(1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE
REPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT:
(a) OF THE RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ex. An attempt upon the life of a general of the
Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his rank.
(b) OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ex. When the aggressor is 45 years old and the victim
was an octogenarian.
It is not proper to consider disregard of old age in
crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a
crime against property.
(c) OF THE SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex
(Reyes)
Killing a woman is not attended by this AC if the
offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards
her sex.
THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended
party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in
the commission of the crime i.e. parricide, rape, etc.
Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery.
(2) THAT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF
THE OFFENDED PARTY
DWELLING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, EXCLUSIVELY
USED FOR REST AND COMFORT.
a combination house and store or a market stall
where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
This is considered an AC primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy, the law accords to human abode. Also, in
certain cases, there is an abuse of confidence which the offended
party reposed in the offender by opening the door to him.
The evidence must show clearly that the defendant
entered the house of the deceased to attack him.
The offended party must not give provocation. If the
provocation did not take place in the house, dwelling may be
considered as an AC.
Dwelling is aggravating, even if the offender did not
enter the upper part of the house where the victim was, but shot
from under the house.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

DWELLING NOT APPLICABLE:

When both offender and offended party are occupants of
the same house.
When the robbery is committed by the use of force upon
things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent to the
crime.
In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is also inherent or
included by law in defining the crime.
When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and
immediate provocation.
When the dwelling where the crime was committed did
not belong to the offended party.
When the rape was committed in the ground floor of the
2-storey structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
A victim raped in the boarding house where she was a
bedspacer. Her room constituted a dwelling.
Dwelling may be temporary dwelling.
Note: The Code speaks of dwelling, not domicile.
Dwelling is not aggravating in adultery when paramour also
lives in the conjugal home.
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
People v. Rodil (1981)
Facts: Lt. Mesana approached Rodil and identifies
himself as a PC officer. He asked Rodil whether or not the gun
which the latter possessed had a license. Rodil attempted to draw
his gun but was prevented by Mesanas companions. Rodil was
asked to sign a document attesting to the confiscation of the gun
but he refused. Instead, he drew a dagger and managed to stab
Mesana in the chest repeatedly.
Held: The AC of disregard of rank should be appreciated
because it is obvious that Mesana identified himself as a PC officer
to the accused who is merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling
Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the
victim.
People v. Daniel (1978)
Facts: 13-year-old Margarita was at the bus station
when the accused, Daniel, started molesting her, asking her name
and trying to get her bag to carry it for her. She refused and
asked the help of the conductor and driver but they did not help
her. She ran to the jeepney stop and rode the jeep. Daniel
followed her to the boarding house and he raped her.
Held: Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace
in a boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and
purposes a dwelling as the term is used in Art. 14(3) of the RPC.
Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home
the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
People v. Banez (1999)
Facts: The accused was living with his parents. His
sisters complained to their father that the accused made trouble
whenever he was drunk. They wanted to put up the accuse in
another house. That night while they were discussing the plans
for the accused, while their father went to his room, the accused,
who looked drunk, ran to the kitchen and got 2 knives and then
stabbed the father. The father died.
Held: The AC of dwelling cannot be considered
aggravating where the accused and the victim were living in the
same house where the crime was committed. The rationale for

considering dwelling an AC is the violation by the offender of the

sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to
commit the crime. This reason is entirely absent in this case.
People v. Lapaz (1989)
Facts: Eulalia Cabunag, a 70-year-old woman who was
living alone, was beaten to death by 3 men. Appellant Barleso,
Lapaz and Cristoto agreed to kill Eulalia because there was one
incident when the victim called Barleso a thief in front of many
people.
Held: The presence of treachery is clear as Barleso
invited two companions to help him execute his plan to beat the
victim to death with pieces of wood in the middle of the night
insuring the killing of the victim without risk to himself arising
from the defense with the offended party might make.
While it may be true that nighttime is absorbed in the
AC of treachery, the AC of disregard of sex and age cannot be
similarly absorbed. Treachery refers to the manner of the
commission of the crime. Disregard of sex and age pertains to the
relationship of the victim, who is a 70-year old woman, and the
appellant who is a young man, 27 years old, at the time of the
commission of the offense.
People v. Taboga (2002)
Facts: Taboga entered the house of Tubon, a widowed
septuagenarian, robbed, stabbed and burned beyond recognition
the latters house.
Held: Anent the circumstance of age, there must be a
showing that the malefactor deliberately intended to offend or
insult the age of the victim. Neither could disregard of respect due
to sex be appreciated if the offender did not manifest any
intention to offend or disregard the sex of the victim. In other
words, killing a woman is not attended by the aggravating
circumstance if the offender did not manifest any specific insult or
disrespect towards the offended party's sex. In the case at bar,
there is absolutely no showing that Taboga deliberately intended
to offend or insult the victim. However, even if disrespect or
disregard of age or sex were not appreciated, the four
circumstances enumerated in Article 14, paragraph 3 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, can be considered singly or
together.
People v. De Mesa (2001)
Facts: Motas, Barangay Chairman of Barangay Sta. Cruz
Putol, San Pablo City, was shot by De Mesa while playing a card
game with some townmates at a neighborhood store resulting to
his death. The trial court, in convicting De Mesa for murder,
appreciated the aggravating circumstance of commission of the
crime in contempt of or with assault to public authorities.
Held: The trial court also erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance that the commission of the crime was in
contempt of or with assault to public authorities. The requisites of
this circumstance are: (1) the public authority is engaged in the
discharge of his duties and (2) he is not the person against whom
the crime is committed. None of these circumstances are present
in this case. In the first place, the crime was committed against
the barangay chairman himself. At the time that he was killed, he
was not engaged in the discharge of his duties as he was in fact
playing a card game with his neighbors.
People v. Montinola (Supra)
Facts: Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney driven by
Hibinioda. Among the passengers was Reteracion. All of a sudden,
appellant drew his gun, an unlicensed firearm, .380 cal pistol and
directed Reteracion to hand over his money or else he would be
killed. Montinola aimed the firearm at the neck of Reteracion and
fired successive shots at the latter. As a result Reteracion slumped
dead. Montinola was charged with robbery with homicide and
illegal possession of firearm.
Held: DIsregard of age, sex or rank is not aggravating in
robbery with homicide, which is primarily a crime against
property, as the homicide is regarded as merely incidental to the
robbery.
People v. Tao (2000)
Facts: Amy was tending a video rental shop owned by
Marina. Tao kept going in and out of the shop and on the last
time he went inside said shop, he suddenly jumped over the

counter, strangled Amy, poked a knife at the left side of her neck,
pulled her towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress,
and gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent.
Before they could reach the upper floor, he suddenly pulled Amy
down and started mauling her until she lost consciousness; then
he freely ransacked the place. Leaving Amy for dead after
repeatedly banging her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet
bowl, he took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then
proceeded upstairs where he took as well the jewelry box
containing other valuables belonging to his victim's employer. The
trial court appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance
because the incident took place supposedly at the residence of
private complainant's employer, "which doubles as a video rental
shop.
Held: Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in this case because the rape was committed in the
ground floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor being used
as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or
residence.
People v. Rios (2000)
Facts: Rios, hurled stones at the house of Ambrocio and
Anacita Benedicto. A few minutes later, and while the Benedicto
spouses were tending their store, Rios bought cigarettes.
Ambrocio confronted Rios about the stoning incident and an
altercation ensued between them. Having heard the appellant
shout at Ambrocio, Mesa intervened and requested the 2 to part
ways and escorted them to their respective residences. A few
minutes later, appellant went back to the store. Ambrocio went to
the terrace of their house. Appellant suddenly approached
Ambrocio and stabbed his right stomach. Mesa and his group saw
Anacita weeping while Ambrocio was lying lifeless in the terrace of
their house. Ambrocio died before he was brought to the hospital.
The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling.
Held: The trial court correctly appreciated the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling or morada in this case. The
word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms
an integral part thereof and therefore it includes the staircase of
the house and much more, its terrace. When a crime is committed
in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given
provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. 32 Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient,
and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime.
People v. Arizobal (2000)
Facts: Arizobal and two others entered the house of
spouses Clementina and Laurencio Gimenez. They then ransacked
the house and ordered Laurencio to go with them to his son
Jimmys house. Upon reaching the house of Jimmy, they tied the
latter and one Francisco also surnamed Gimenez. They consumed
the food and cigarettes Jimmys wife Erlinda, was selling. They
proceeded to ransacked the household in search of valuables.
Thereafter, Erlinda was ordered to produce P100,00 in exchange
for Jimmys life. Erlinda offered to give a certificate of large cattle
but the document was thrown back at her. The 3 then dragged
Jimmy outside the house together with Laurencio. One of the
culprits returned and told Erlinda that Jimmy and Laurencio had
been killed for trying to escape. The trial court found Arizobal and
Lignes guilty of robbery with homicide. It also appreciated the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Held: The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling
as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered
inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode
of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an
inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors
thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the
sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar, the robbers
demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the
victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses,
intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission,
disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before
dragging them out of the house to be killed.
Par. 4. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.

(1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

a.
b.
c.

REQUISITES:
That the offended party had trusted the offender.
That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime.

The confidence between the offender and the offended party

must be immediate and personal.
It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by
conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction.
(2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
clear.

The ungratefulness must be obvious manifest and

People v. Mandolado (1983)

Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, with Erinada and Simon
are trainees/draftees of the AFP. They got to know each other and
had a drinking session at the bus terminal. The accused was
drunk. He got his gun and started firing. Erinada and Simon rode
a jeep and tried to escape from Mandolado and Ortillano but the
two eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot the
victims to death.
Held: There is no AC of abuse of confidence. In order
that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is
necessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidence
between the accused and one against whom the crime was
committed and that the accused made use of such a relationship
to commit the crime. It is also essential that the confidence
between the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage to commit the crime. It is
obvious that the accused and the victims only met for the first
time so there is no personal or immediate relationship upon which
confidence might rest between them.
People v. Arrojado (2001)
Facts: Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann are first cousins
and lived with her and her father. Arrojado helped care for the
victims father for which he was paid a P1,000 monthly salary.
Arrojado killed Mary Ann by stabbing her with a knife. Thereafter
he claimed that the latter committed suicide.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence 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.
People v. Silva (2002)
Facts: Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a rope and a
flashlight abducted brothers Edmund and Manuel Ceriales while
the two were playing a game of cards inside their house in the
middle of the night. They tied both their hands and feet with a
rope and they brought the brothers at an isolated place. Edmund
was stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death.
Edmund Ceriales was able to escape while the accused were
about to kill his brother. The trial court appreciated nighttime as
an aggravating circumstance.
Held: By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating
circumstance, however, it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it
is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage
of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by
ensuring the offender's immunity from capture. In this case, the
trial court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating
considering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of the Ceriales
brothers, the killing of Manuel and the attempt to kill Edmund.
Evidence shows that accused-appellants took advantage of the
darkness to successfully consummate their plans. The fact that
they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they
intended to commit the crime in darkness.

People v. Ancheta (2004)

Facts: Appellant Ulep and his group, robbed Alfredo
Roca of 35 sacks of Palay after killing his son, his wife and his
mother with their guns. Thereafter, they boarded their jeep and
left.
Held: The offense was proven to have been executed by
a band. A crime is committed by a band when at least four armed
malefactors act together in the commission thereof. In this case,
all six accused were armed with guns which they used on their
victims. Clearly, all the armed assailants took direct part in the
execution of the robbery with homicide.
People v. Librando (2000)
Facts: Edwin and his daughter Aileen, and a relative,
Fernando, were traversing a hilly portion of a trail on their way
home when they met Raelito Librando, Larry and Eddie. Edwin
was carrying a torch at that time as it was already dark. Raelito
inquired from Edwin the whereabouts of Fernando and without
any warning hit Edwin with a piece of wood. Eddie followed suit
and delivered another blow to Edwin. Edwin ran but he was
chased by Raelito. Thereafter, the three men took turns hitting
Edwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and died. The trial
court considered nighttime and uninhabited place as just one
aggravating circumstance.
Held: The court did not err in considering nighttime and
uninhabited place as just one aggravating circumstance. The court
cited the case of People vs. Santos where it has been held that if
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or
band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one
aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can
be considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived
and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.
Par. 5. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE PALACE
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS PRESENCE, OR
WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES, OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED
TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.
PLACE WHER PUBLIC
CONTEMPT OR INSULT
AUTHORITIES ARE
TO PUBLIC
ENGAGED IN THE
AUTHORITIES
DISCHARGE OF THEIR
(par. 2)
DUTIES (par. 5)
The public authorities are in the performance of their
duties.
The public authorities who The public authorities are
are in the performance of performing their duties
their duties must be in outside of their offices.
their office.
The public authority may The
public
authority
be the offended party.
should not be the offended
party.
If it is the Malacaang palace or a church, it is aggravating,
regardless of whether State or official or religious functions are
being held.
The President need not be in the palace. His presence alone in
any place where the crime is committed is enough to constitute
the AC. It also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge
of his duties in the place where the crime was committed.
But as regards the place where the public authorities are
engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some
performance of public functions.
Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious worship.
Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he
entered the place.
Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE
NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3)
BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.

WHENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMED

MALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN THE
COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY A BAND.
These 3 circumstances may be considered separately when their
elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently,
revealing a greater degree of perversity.
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating:
1.
When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2.
When especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
impunity; or
3.
When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
(1) NIGHTTIME
- The commission of the crime must begin and be
accomplished in the nighttime.
- The offense must be actually committed in the
darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating.
(2) UNINHABITED PLACE
- One where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town, or where the houses are
scattered at a great distance from each other.
- TEST: WON in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
some help.
- The fact that persons occasionally passed in the
uninhabited place and that on the night of the murder another
hunting party was not a great distance away, does not matter. It
is the nature of the place which is decisive.
- It must appear that the accused SOUGHT THE
SOLITUDE of the place where the crime was committed, in order
to better attain his purpose.
- The offenders must choose the place as an aid either
(1) to an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal
designs or (2) to insure concealment of the offense.
(3) BAND
- Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
- The armed men must act together in the commission
of the crime.
- If one of the four armed persons is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band.
- All the armed men, at least four in number, must take
direct part in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
- Considered in crimes against property and persons and
not to crimes against chastity.
- It is inherent in brigandage.
People v. Jose (supra)
Facts: The Maggie Dela Riva story. Maggie was on her
was home, driving her car accompanied by her maid, when she
was stopped by another car boarded by 4 men. Accused Pineda
pulled her out of the car and forced her inside the assailants car.
She was brought to a hotel and there, the 4 raped her.
Held: SC found that there was committed forcible
abduction with rape. With rape as the more serious crime, the
penalty to be imposed is the maximum in accordance with Art. 48
of the RPC. With this finding, the extreme penalty of death was
imposed. While the SC found no necessity of considering the ACs,
the Court still considered the ACs for the purpose of determining
the proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other 3 crimes of
simple rape. The court claimed that there was an AC of nighttime
because of appellants have purposely sought such circumstance
to facilitate the commission of these crimes.
People v. Desalisa (1994)
Facts: Moved by hatred and jealousy, the accused,
armed with a sharp pointed instrument, attacked and inflicted
physical injuries on the vagina of his wife who was about 5

months pregnant. Thereafter, the accused hanged his wife to a

jackfruit tree, causing her death and that of her fetus.
He was found guilty of the complex crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion and was sentenced to life
imprisonment by the LC.
Held: The AC of uninhabited place is present. The
uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of
the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in
the place of the commission, there was reasonable possibility of
the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was
done during nighttime and many fruit trees obstruct the view of
neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for
the victim to receive any assistance. The couple lived on a small
nipa house on a hill. There are 2 other houses in the
neighborhood which are 150 meters away; the house of Normas
parents and house of Carlito. These cannot, however, be seen
from the couples house because of the many fruit trees and
shrubs prevalent in the area.
Gamara v. Valero (1973)
Facts: Petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed
impugning the order of the judge of the lower court to forward the
records of the case to the Military Tribunal. This is claimed to be in
accordance with General Orders No. 12 that those involving
crimes against persons and property when committed by a
syndicate or a band falls under the jurisdiction of the Military
Tribunal.
Held: While the information charges four persons, it was
not, however, shown that all of them were armed when they
allegedly acted in concert in the commission of the crime. What is
more, the supposed participation of petitioner Gamara was that of
principal by inducement, which undoubtedly connotes that he had
no direct participation in the perpetration thereof.
Par. 7. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE
OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,
EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.
The reason for the existence of this AC is found in the debased
form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great
calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their
suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
The offender
misfortune.

must

take

advantage

of

the

calamity

or

OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE refers to other

conditions of distress similar to conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake or epidemic.
Par. 8. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID
OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD
IMPUNITY.

1.
2.

REQUISITES:
That the armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
That the accused availed himself of their aid or
relied upon them when the crime was committed.

The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in the

offense.
This AC shall not be considered when both the attacking party
and the party attacked were equally armed.
This AC is not present when the accused as well as those who
cooperated with him in the commission of the crime, acted under
the same plan and for the same purpose.
WITH AID OF ARMED
MEN (par. 8)
Aid of armed men is
present even if one of the
offenders merely relied on
their aid, for actual aid is
not necessary.

BY A BAND
(par. 6)
More
than
3
armed
malefactors
that
have
acted together in the
commission of an offense.

 If there are 4 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed by

employment of a band
Aid of armed men includes armed women

Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.

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.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is
not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy
years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or
when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by
reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be
worthy of such clemency.
A recidivist 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 the RPC.
a.
b.
c.
d.

REQUISITES:
That the offender is on trial for an offense;
That he was previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime;
That both the first and the second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code;
That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the

commission of the crime.
There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an
offense committed before the offense involved in the prior
conviction.
Sec. 7 of Rule 120 , Rules of Court, provides that a judgment in
a criminal case becomes final
(1) after the lapse of the [period for perfecting an
appeal, or
(2) when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied or served, or
(3) the defendant has expressly waived in writing his
right to appeal, or
(4) the accused has applied for probation.
There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two
felonies is more than 10 years. Recidivism must be taken into
account no mater how many years have intervened between the
1st and 2nd felonies.
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a
recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects.
People v. Molina (2000)
Facts: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along with their
cousin, Danny were on their way home when they heard
somebody shout kuba, referring to Joseph, a hunchback. They
asked who said that but no one admitted. As the 3 were about to
go, Molina delivered a strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph.
Angelito came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him at
the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic.
Held: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the
same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of
the sentences rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the
trial court may still give such AC credence if the accused does not
object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
In the case at bar, the accused never voiced out any
objection when confronted with the fact of his previous conviction
for attempted homicide.
People v. Dacillo (2004)
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie leading
to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold down Rosemaries

legs to prevent her from struggling. The two men stopped only
when they were sure that the victim was already dead. Dacillo
then encase her corpse in a cement. The trial court imposed the
death penalty on the ground that Dacillo admitted during re-cross
examination that he had a prior conviction for the death of his
former live-in partner. The fact that Dacillo was a recidivist was
appreciated by the trial court as a generic aggravating
circumstance which increased the imposable penalty from
reclusion perpetua to death
Held: The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was
not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be
appreciated against appellant.
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the information and to
attach certified true copies of the sentences previously meted out
to the accused. 26 This is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: 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.
Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY
PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES
AN EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE
CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY.
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:
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced
to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor
in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum
period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity
herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed
to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification,
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
REQUISITES:
a.
That the accused is on trial for an offense;
b.
That he previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty han that for the new offense; and
c.
That he is convicted of the new offense.
REITERACION/
HABITUALITY
It is necessary that the
offender shall have served
out his sentence for the
first offense.
The previous and
subsequent offenses must
not be embraced in the
same title of the Code.
Reiteracion is not always
an aggravating

RECIDIVISM
It is enough that a final
judgment has been
rendered in the first
offense.
It is the requirement that
the offenses be included in
the same title of the Code.
Recidivism is not always to
be taken into

circumstance.

consideration in fixing the

penalty to be imposed
upon the accused.

FOUR FORMS OR REPETITION:

1.
RECIDIVISM
2.

REITERACTION OR HABITUALITY

MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY
- when a person, within a period of 10 years from the
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification,
is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In
habitual delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one who
has been previously punished for two or more offenses
(habituality). He shall suffer an additional penalty for being a
habitual delinquent.

President of the Philippines on 8 November 1991. Reiteracion or

habituality under Art. 14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when
the accused has been previously punished for an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached
by law to the second offense or for two or more offenses to which
it attaches a lighter penalty. As already discussed, herein accused
can be convicted only of simple rape and the imposable penalty
therefor is reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the mitigating
or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime, such as in
the instant case.

3.

4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
- Any person who shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such
sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony.
People v. Gaorana (1998)
Facts: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena (common-law
wife of the accused) went to the house of Gaorana and saw the
couple lying down. Marivel was asked to come it and Rowena
stood up to urinate. Gaorana covered her mouth and pointed a
hunting knife to her neck and raped her. The second incident of
rape occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her
brother and sister. Marivel did not shout because she was afraid of
the accused who was a prisoner and had already killed somebody.
Held: The 2 Information alleged that both instances of
rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasirecidivism. The TC made no express ruling that the appellant was
a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution
manifested that appellant had been convicted by the RTC and was
serving sentence for the crime of homicide. However, the
prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record
of appellants previous conviction. Quasi-recidivism, like
recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a
certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The fact that
appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final
judgment had been rendered against him.
People v. Villapando (1989)
Facts: The accused was charged before the RTC with the
crimes of murder and of attempted homicide.
Held: The court does not agree that reiteracion or
habituality should be appreciated in this case. The appellant was
found by the trial court to have committed offenses prior to and
after the incident of Jan. 14, 1979. In habituality, it is essential
that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has served
the sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or
provides for an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law
to the second offense, or for two or ore offenses, in which the law
attaches a lighter penalty. Here, the records do not disclose that
the appellant has been previously punished by an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater or penalty or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
People v. Cajara (2000)
Facts: Accused Cajara raped 16-year old Marita in front
of his common-law wife who is the half-sister of the victim and his
two small children. The trial court convicted him as charged and
sentenced him to death.
Held: The records show that the crime was aggravated
by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of The Revised Penal Code,
the accused having been convicted of frustrated murder in 1975
and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal
possession of firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his
sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for 23 years and
a fine of P200,000.00. He was granted conditional pardon by the

Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN

CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.
When this AC is present, there must be 2 or more principals, the
one who gives or offers the price or promise and the one who
accepts it, both of whom are principals to the former, because
he directly induces the latter to commit the crime, and the latter
because he commits it.
When this AC is present, it affects not only the person who
received the price or reward, but also the person who gave it.
The evidence must show that one of the accused used money or
other valuable consideration for the purpose of inducing another
to perform the deed.
Par. 12. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS OF
INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF
A VESSEL OR INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO,
DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY
OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.
Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal
purpose, any of the circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be
considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the
offense.
When another AC already qualifies the crime, any of these ACs
shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance only.
When the crime intended to be committed is arson and
somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply arson and
the act resulting in the death of that person is not even an
independent crime of homicide, it being absorbed.
The killing of the victim by means of such circumstances as
inundation, fire, poison or explosion qualifies the offense to
murder.
It will be noted that each of the circumstances of fire,
explosion, and derailment of a locomotive may be a part of the
definition of particular crime, such as, arson, crime involving
destruction, and damages and obstruction to means of
communication.
In these cases, they do not serve to increase the
penalty, because they are already included by the law in defining
the crimes.
Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENCE
PREMEDITATION.
Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act
before executing it.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent any proof
as to how and when the plan was hatched or what time elapsed
before it was carried out.
1.

REQUISITIES:
The time when the offender determined to
commit the crime;

2.

An act manifestly indicating that the

culprit has clung to his determination; and
When the crime was carefully planned by the offenders;
When the offenders previously prepared the means
which they considered adequate to carry it out.
3.
A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act and to allow is conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.
The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and
serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the
consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long
enough for his conscience and better judgment to
overcome his evil desire and scheme.
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be
aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation
included the killing of the victim.
People v. Bibat (1998)
Facts: At around 1:30 pm, Bibat stabbed to death one
Lloyd del Rosario as the latter was on his way to school waiting for
a ride. The suspect fled while the victim was brought to the
hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. A witness
testified that the accused and several others often met in Robles
house. In one of their meetings, the accused and his companions
hid some guns and tusok in the house. Also, other witnesses
saw the accused at around 11:30 am with some companions and
heard the plan to kill someone.
Held: There is evident premeditation determination
because the 3 requisites are present. There was evident
premeditation where 2 hours had elapsed from the time the
accused clung to his determination to kill the victim up to the
actual perpetration of the crime.
People v. Lug-aw (1994)
Facts: Pal-loy was fencing the boundary limits of the
land he was faming when his daughter, Sonia, heard a shot.
Immediately, she went uphill and just as a second gun shot
resounded, she saw Bannay and Lug-aw from a distance and that
her father was bout to draw his bolo when Lug-aw shot him.
Held: The SC ruled that there was no evident
premeditation because no one witnessed the initial attack. As
Sonia herself testified, she heard the first whot, went up a hill,
climbed a tree and from ther, saw Lug-aw shooting her father with
the shot reverberating as the second gun report. What she did see
was her father trying to repel the assault with a bolo but he failed
because a second shot hit him. The records are bereft of evidence
that the crime was committed with evident premeditation.
People v. Camilet (1986)
Facts: After a prayer meeting was held at the place of
the victim, a deaf-mute boy arrived crying and while making
signals, was able to convey that he was strangled and spanked.
Accompanied by some of his guests, the victim proceeded to go to
the place where the boy said he was accosted. Nearing the place,
the victim was suddenly stabbed by the accused in the stomach
with a long knife.
Held: Evident premeditation was not established by the
prosecution. Although the facts tend to show that Camilet might
have harbored ill-feelings towards the Camanchos after they took
a portion of the land he was farming and, as he himself stated to
the police, they also took the produce from his cornfield, there is
no proof that Camilet conceived of killing the victim. Indeed, there
is no evidence of 1) the time when he determined to commit the
crime, 2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome
the resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its
warnings.
People v. Ilaoa (1994)
Facts: The 5 accused were charged for the gruesome
murder of Nestor de Loyola. The conviction was based on the
following circumstances: a) The deceased was seen on the night
before the killing in a drinking session with some of the accused;
2) The drunken voices accused Ruben and Nestor were later
heard and Nestor was then seen being kicked and mauled by the

5 accused; 3) some of the accused borrowed the tricycle of Alex

at about 2 a.m.; 4) blood was found in Rubens shirt.
Held: Evident premeditation cannot be considered.
There is nothing in the records to show that appellant, prior to the
night in question, resolved to kill Nestor, nor is there proof to
show that such killing was the result of meditation, calculation or
resolution on his part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to
show that the series of circumstances which culminated in the
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no interval of
time separating them for calculation and meditation.
People v. Mondijar (2002)
Facts:. In a previous incident, Aplacador had stabbed
Mondijar, his father in law on the knee. A month after, Mondiijar
stabbed and hacked his son-in-law with the use of a sharp and
pointed bolo which resulted to his death.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. For the
circumstance of evident premeditation to be appreciated, the
prosecution must present clear and positive evidence of the
planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the
commission of the crime. Settled is the rule that evident
premeditation, like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing
to murder, must be established beyond reasonable doubt as
conclusively and indubitably as the killing itself. In the present
case, no evidence was presented by the prosecution as to when
and how appellant planned and prepared for the killing of the
victim. There is no showing of any notorious act evidencing a
determination to commit the crime which could prove appellant's
criminal intent.
People v. Torpio (supra)
Facts: While having a drinking spree in a cottage,
Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin and as the latter
refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with gin and mauled him several
times. Dennis crawled beneath the table and Anthony tried to
stab him with a 22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up
and ran towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a knife.
He went back to the cottage by another route and upon arrival
Anthony was still there. Upon seeing Dennis, Anthony avoided
Dennis and ran by passing the shore towards the creek but
Dennis met him, blocked him and stabbed him. When he was hit,
Anthony ran but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and continued
stabbing him resulting to the latters death. Thereafter, Dennis
left and slept at a grassy meadow near a Camp. In the morning,
he went to Estrera, a police officer to whom he voluntarily
surrendered.
Held: No evident premeditation exist in this case. There
was no sufficient interregnum from the time the Dennis was
stabbed by the victim, when the Dennis fled to their house and
his arming himself with a knife, and when he stabbed the victim.
In a case of fairly recent vintage, it was ruled that there is no
evident premeditation when the fracas was the result, not of a
deliberate plan but of rising tempers, or when the attack was
made in the heat of anger.
People v. Bernal (2002)
Facts: Appellant, Fernando, Felix, Rey all surnamed
Bernal and the victim Pedrito went to a pubhouse. Pedrito Rey and
appellant went inside while Fernando and Felix waited outside.
Fernando later went inside and saw the three in a sleeping
position. Fernando then asked Felix to start the trycicle as they
would bring home the three. He first brought Pedrito out of the
pub and had him seated at the passengers seat inside the trycicle.
Fernado then got appellant who was roused when they reached
the trycicle. While Fernado was fetching Rey, accused positioned
himself at the back of Pedrito who was still asleep and discharged
his firearm twice hitting the latter on the head.
Held: The Court ruled that there was no evidence
directly showing any pre-conceived plan or devise employed by
accused-appellant to kill the victim. Accused-appellant did not go
to Barangay Dangdangla, Bangued to kill the victim but to attend
to some important matters. Accused-appellant was just invited by
his relatives, whom he had not seen for a while after he changed
residence, to have a drinking spree. The probability is that the
decision to shoot the victim was made only right there and then.
This should at least cast reasonable doubt on the existence of a
premeditated plan to kill the victim. Further, the mere existence of

ill-feeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient to

establish premeditated killing. Hence, it would be erroneous to
declare that the killing of the victim was premeditated.
People v. Biso (2003)
Facts: Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an eatery,
seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual advances to her
in the presence of her brother, Eduardo. Eduardo contacted his
cousin, Biso an ex-convict and a known toughie in the area, and
related to him what Dario had done to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio,
and 2 others decided to confront Dario. They positioned
themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. Dario arrived on
board a taxicab. The four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with his
right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered the mouth of Dario with
his left hand. The 2 others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio
then stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo
stabbed Dario and fled with his three companions from the scene.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill Dario and
if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how
the malefactors intended to consummate the crime. Except for the
fact that the appellant and his three companions waited in an
alley for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to
prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his cohorts
showing that that they had clung to any plan to kill the victim.
Par. 14. - THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE
EMPLOYED.
CRAFT involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of
the accused. It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the
crime.
e.x. Where the defendants pretended to be constabulary
soldiers to gain entry into the place of the victims.
The act of the accused in pretending to be bona fide
passengers of the taxicab driven by the deceased, when they
were not so in fact, in order not to arouse his suspicion, and then
killing him, constituted craft.
Where craft partakes of an element of the offense, the same
may not be appreciated independently for the purpose of
aggravation.
FRAUD insidious words or machinations used to induce the
victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to
carry out his design.
e.x. To enter the house, one of the accused shouted
from the outside that they wanted to buy cigarettes.
There is a hairline distinction between craft and fraud.
DISTINCTION: When there is a DIRECT INDUCEMENT by
insidious words or machinations, fraud is present; otherwise, the
act of the accused done in order NOT TO AROUSE THE SUSPICION
of the victim constitutes craft.
DISGUISE resorting to any device to conceal identity.
ex. Wearing of masks
The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to
conceal his identity.
People v. Marquez (1982)
Facts: Francisca was in their house together with her
children and main when somebody called in front of their window
who identified themselves as PC soldiers looking for contraband.
The men ordered her to open up otherwise they will shoot up their
house. Then accused Marquez went inside together with other
armed companions. They took some of their belongings and one
of them even raped Francisca, Leticia (daughter of Francisca) and
Rufina (maid).
Held: The following ACs were proved a) nighttime; 2)
unlawful entry; 3) dwelling of the offended parties; 4) disguise,
that is by pretending to be PC officers; and 5) by utter disregard
due to victims age and sex.
People v. Empacis (1993)

Facts: Empacis et al. held-up the store of Fidel and his

wife. As Fidel was about to give the money, he decided to fight.
He was stabbed several times which resulted to his death.
Empacis was stabbed by the son of Fidel. When he went to a clinic
for treatment, he was arrested.
Held: Langomes and Empacis pretended to be bona fide
customers of the victims store and on this pretext gained entry
into the latters store and into another part of his dwelling. Thus,
there AC of craft was taken into consideration.
People v. Labuguen (2000)
Facts: Under the pretext of selling 3 cows to the victim,
Labuguen convinced the victim to see the cows and bring P40,000
with him. The two rode on the victiims motorcycle and Labuguen
lured him to where he could divest the victim of his money with
the least danger of being caught. He then boarded a bus leaving
the motorcycle of the victim on the side of the road. The victims
dead body was found on the middle of a rice field, 50 meters from
the service drop of an irrigation canal.
Held: the generic aggravating circumstances of fraud
and craft is present in this case. Craft involves intellectual trickery
and cunning on the part of the offender. When there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present.
By saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows
which the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the
victim to go with him.
Par. 15. - THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE
DEFENSE.
(1) SUPERIOR STRENGTH
To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength means to
use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked.
One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation
dos not take advantage of his superior strength.
An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon
an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance
of abuse of that superiority which his SEX and the WEAPON used
in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to
defend herself.
No abuse of superior strength in parricide against the
wife because it is inherent in the crime. It is generally accepted
that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.
There must be evidence that the accused was
physically stronger and that they abused such superiority. The
mere fact of there being a superiority in numbers is not sufficient
to bring the case within the aggravating circumstance.
There is abuse of superior strength when weapon used
is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery.
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in coercion
and forcible abduction, when greatly in excess of that required to
commit the offense.
BY A BAND
When
the
committed by
armed
regardless
comparative
the victim.

offense
is
more than 3
malefactors
of
the
strength of

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
The gravamen of abuse of
superiority is the taking
advantage by the culprits
of their collective strength
to overpower their weaker
victims.

(2) MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against
persons and sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
This AC is absorbed in treachery.
Ex. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly
casts sand or dirt upon the latters eyes and then wound or kills
him, evidently employs means which weaken the defense of his
opponent.
People v. Cabato (1988)

Facts: The accused with 2 other men who are still at

large, armed with firearms and stones and using face masks,
entered the dwelling of the victim. They held the victim tight as
well as the wife, who was able to scratch the face of the masked
man, as a result was able to identify the accused. Not satisfied
with the money given by the couple, the two unknown robbers hit
the victim with stone at the back of his head and the accused did
the same to the wife which caused her death. The prosecution
argued that since the attack was by a robust man of 29 years with
a huge stone against an ageing defenseless human, abuse of
superior strength should aggravate the crime.
Held: The prosecution failed to prove that there was
indeed a notorious inequality between the ages, sizes and
strength of the antagonists and that these notorious advantages
were purposely sought for or used by the accused to achieve his
ends.
People v. Ruelan (1994)
Facts: Ruelan (20 yrs old) was hired by the spouses
Ricardo and Rosa (76 yrs old) to help them sell and deliver rice to
their customers. One day, Rosa asked Ruelan to accompany her,
in opening their store in the public market; she also ordered him
to bring a sack and an axe. When they were about to leave the
premises, the house dog got loose and went towards the street.
Rosa got angry and scolded Ruelan. Ruelan pleaded her to stop
but Rosa did not so Ruelan struck her behind her right ear,
causing her to fall face down. He left her to a grassy portion
beside the street and fled. He surrendered to the police after 2
days.
Held: Although abuse of superior strength was proven
since Ruelan was only 20 years old whereas his victim was 76
years old already, this was not pleaded in the information, hence,
it shall only be considered as a generic circumstance in the
imposition of the correct penalty.
People v. Padilla (1994)
Facts: Pat. Omega was on duty when Ontuca
approached him asking for help claiming he was being maltreated
by strangers. They proceeded to the place where they saw 3 men
and a woman. An argument ensued between Ontuca and the 3
men, one of which was Sgt. Padilla. Omega left but returned when
he saw that the 3 men were ganging up on Ontuca. The latter was
stripped of his service revolver. Ontuca was pursued by Padilla.
The former, with only a piece of plywood as a defense, was shot
by the latter in the head.
Held: The killing was qualified by the AC of abuse of
superior strength which was alleged in the information and proved
during trial. The abuse of superior strength is present not only
when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon
which is out of proportion to the defense available to the victim as
in this case.
People v. Lobrigas (2002)
Facts: Frank, Marlito, both surnamed Lobrigas and
Mante mauled and box Taylaran who was already 76 years old.
The victim died caused by severe beating and mauling on the
chest portion on the victims body.
Held: The crime committed was murder qualified by the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. To
appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate
intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their
greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made
use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take
advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is
out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the
person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the
offenders' deliberate intent to do so.
People v. Barcelon (2002)
Facts: Barcleon went inside the house of Amador.
Thereafter, accuded strangled and stabbed the victim with a knife.
Amador died as a result. At the time the crime was committed,
Amador was a 69 year-old woman and Barcelon was only 29 years
old.
Held: Abuse of superior strength was present in the
commission of the crime. The court cited the case of People vs.

Ocumen, where an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon

an unarmed woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that
superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded
him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
The disparity in age between the assailant and the
victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates physical superiority
on appellant's part over the deceased. It did not matter that
appellant was "dark" with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba."
What mattered was that the malefactor was male and armed with
a lethal weapon that he used to slay the victim.
People v. Sansaet (2002)
Facts Uldarico was drinking with 15 other men that
include the Sansaet brothers, Rogelio, Leopoldo and Silverio.
Because of a bad joke that cropped up, verbal exchanges ensued.
Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico started hacking each other with
bolos. Silverio and Leopolo positioned themselves behind the
victim and also hacked him. Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio.
Rogelio then hacked Uldarico a 2 nd time. Leopoldo and Rogelio
continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell. They then
dragged Uldarico towards the river and there they each twice
hacked Uldarico resulting to his death.
Held: "Mere superiority in number, even assuming it to
be a fact, would not necessarily indicate the attendance of abuse
of superior strength. The prosecution should still prove that the
assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the persons attacked."
"Finally, to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether
the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. To take advantage of superior
strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion
to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself."
In the case at bar, the victim Uldarico de Castro was the one who
picked a fight with the accused-appellants because he did not like
the joke by one of the accused-appellants. There was no evidence
to show that the accused-appellants purposely sought and took
advantage of their number to subdue the victim.
People v. Ventura (2004)
Facts: Ventura armed with a .38 Caliber Home-made
Revolver and Flores armed with a bladed weapon, entered the
house of the Bocatejas by cutting a hole in the kitchen door.
Ventura announced a hold-up and hit Jaime on the head and
asked for the keys. Jaime called out for help and tried to wrestle
the gun away from Ventura. Flores then stabbed Jaime 3 times.
Flores also stabbed Jaimes wife Aileen who had been awakened.
Aileen tried to defend herself with an elecrtric cord to no avail.
Aileen died on the hospital on the same day.
Held: By deliberately employing a deadly weapon
against Aileen, Flores took advantage of the superiority which his
strength, sex and weapon gave him over his unarmed victim. The
fact that Aileen attempted to fend off the attack on her and her
husband by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at
appellant Flores does not automatically negate the possibility that
the latter was able to take advantage of his superior strength
Par. 16. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY
(ALEVOSIA).
TREACHERY means that the offended party was not
given opportunity to make a defense.
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.
REQUISITES:
That at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself; and
b.
That the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack employed by
him.
Treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone.
There is no treachery when the attack is preceded by a warning
or the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be simply
deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence of
a.

this qualifying or aggravating circumstance should be proven as

fully as the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability or
penalty incurred by the culprit.
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY
a.
Applicable only to crimes against persons.
b.
Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment of crime.
c.
The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.
Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to constitute
treachery. Such method or form of attack must be deliberately
chosen by the accused.
ATTACKS SHOWN INTENTION TO ELIMITNATE RISK:
a. Victim asleep
b. Victim half-awake or just awakened
c.
Victim grappling or being held.
d. Attacked from behind
There is treachery in killing a child because the weakness of the
victim due to his tender age results in the absence of any danger
to the accused.
ADDITIONAL RULES:
1. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must
be present in the BEGINNING of the assault.
2. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that there
was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was
present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim
was the same person whom the accused intended to kill.
When it is NOT SHOWN that the principal by induction directed
the killer of the deceased to adopt the means or methods actually
used by the latter in accomplishing the murder, because the
former left to the latter the details as to how it was to be
accomplished, treachery cannot be taken into consideration as to
the principal by induction.
TREACHERY

ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH

The
means,
methods
or
forms of attack
are employed to
make
it
impossible
or
hard
for
the
offended
party
to
defend
himself.

The
offender
does not employ
means, methods
or
forms
of
attack; he only
takes advantage
of his superior
strength.

MEANS
EMPLOYED TO
WEAKEN
DEFENSE
The
offender,
like in treachery,
employs means
but the means
employed
only
materially
weakens
the
resisting power
of the offended
party.

When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the

offenders.
Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength
are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of treason.
Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of armed
men, by a band and means to weaken the defense.
Nighttime and craft are absorbed in treachery except if
treachery rests upon an independent factual basis.
Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning.
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation.
People v. Castillo (1998)
Facts: Velasco was sitting outside the pubhouse talking
with his co-worker, Dorie, when one of the customers named Tony
went out of the pubhouse. Then, Castillo suddenly appeared and,
without warning, stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest.
Tony pleaded for help but accused stabbed him once more.
Velasco placed a chair between Tony and the accused to stop the

latter. Tony ran away but was pursued by the accused. Tony died
and his body was found outside the fence of Iglesia ni Cristo
Compound.
Held: The killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is
committed when two conditions concur, namely, that the person
attacked had no opportunity to defend himself and that such
means, method, and forms of execution were deliberately and
consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.
These requisites were evidently present in this case when the
accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly stabbed the victim
just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend, Velasco. Said action
rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence
of defense wounds does not negate treachery because, as
testified to by Velasco, the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted
on the chest. The incised wounds in the arms were inflicted when
the victim was already rendered defenseless.
People v. Sangalang (1974)
Facts: Cortez left his nipa hut to gather tuba from a
coconut tree nearby. While he was on top of the tree, he was
struck by a volley of shots and he fell to the ground at the base of
the coconut tree. The accused and his companions shot Cortez
several times which resulted to his death.
Held: The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba
on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed and defenseless. He
was not expecting to be assaulted. He did not give immediate
provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang
and his companions employed a mode of execution which insured
the killing without any risk to them arising from any defense
which the victim could have made. The killing can be categorized
as murder because of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
People v. Gutierrez (1988)
Facts: While drunk, the accused started cursing Matuano
and challenged him 2 or 3 times while at the office where the two
worked. The accused was holding a balisong. Matuanos son
intervened asking the accused to calm down and the latter
seemingly acceded. As soon as the son resumed work, the
accused lunged towards Matuano whose back was turned and
stabbed him.
Held: The claim that the challenging words of the victim
precluded the circumstance of treachery because it put him on his
guard is untenable. The fact that the accused seemed to be
pacified by the son of the victim made it clear that the victim had
no reason to expect an attack. As such the attack was sudden and
unexpected, from behind and with the victim unarmed without
any chance to defend himself against the initial assault, clearly
show that treachery was present.
People v. Verchez (1994)
Facts: A team of government agents of the PC
conducted a surveillance on a house reported to be the hideout of
a gang of suspected robbers. The agents stopped a car coming
out of the house. It was driven by Balane. Balane was prevailed
upon into accompanying the agents into the house. They
proceeded to the house in 4 cars and when the 1 st car
approached, they were met with heavy gunfire. A firefight ensued.
3 of the agents were hit; one died and two were injured. The men
inside the house later surrendered. Among them was Verchez.
Held: The two requisites of treachery were not proven.
The lawmen, knowing that they were dealing with a gang of bank
robbers, were prepared to deal with any resistance that may
possibly be put up. Also, Sgt. Norcio was killed during the gun
battle and not during the first volley of shots fired by the robbers.
Thus, there is no showing that appellants deliberately and
consciously adopted their mode of attack. Neither is there any
showing that they intended to ambush the lawmen.
People v. Rendaje (2000)
Facts: Lennie was a 15-year old deaf-mute. Rendaje, on
the other hand, was 23 years old and in the prime of his strength.
Rendaje followed Lennie when the latter was on her way home
alone. With the use of a knife, he then inflicted 8 stab wounds, 5
of which were fatal on the victims back. Lennie died as a result.
Her body was found in a sugar cane plantation.
Held: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.
To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1) the
employment of means, methods or manner of execution that
would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory

act on the part of the offended party; and (2) the offender's
deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of
execution.
No one has positively testified on how Lennie was killed
but the victims body shows the manner in which she was
attacked by her assailant. It eloquently speaks for itself. The
injuries established the manner in which the killing was cruelly
carried out with little or no risk to the assailant. The number of
stab wounds, most of which were inflicted at the back of the child
unarmed and alone shows the deliberateness, the
suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack, which thus
deprived her of the opportunity to run or fight back.
People v. Umayam (2002)
Facts: Umayam and the victim, Mendoza were living as
husband and wife in a shanty erected inside a compound owned
by Velasquez. During the couples stay in the compound,
Velasquez would notice them frequently quarelling and Mendoza
on occasions would run to Velasquez for help for the beatings
inflicted on her by her husband. Velasquez then noticed a foul
odor emanating from the couples shanty which he at first thought
to be that of a poultry feed or kaning baboy. With the assistance
of the police who broke the shantys walls, the decomposing of
Mendoza was found inside. The trial court found Umayam guilty of
murder.
Held: The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not
established with concrete evidence. The circumstantial evidence
on record does not clearly show that there was any conscious and
deliberate effort on the part of the accused to adopt any particular
means, method or form of attack to ensure the commission of the
crime without affording the victim any means to defend herself.
The conclusion that there was treachery can hardly be gleaned
because the victim and Umayam were inside their shanty and no
one witnessed how the killing took place. Notably, the medical
findings of the victim's cadaver show, contusions on her arms and
legs, indicating that there may have been a quarrel prior to the
stabbing. This reasonably negates treachery.
People v. Piedad (2002)
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden
attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or to escape. While it is true that the victim
herein may have been warned of a possible danger to his person,
since the victim and his companion headed towards their
residence when they saw the group of accused-appellants coming
back for them after an earlier quarrel just minutes before, in
treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such
a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.
In the case at bar, Mateo did not have any chance of defending
himself from the accused-appellant's concerted assault, even if he
was forewarned of the attack. Mateo was obviously overpowered
and helpless when accused-appellants' group numbering around
eight, ganged up and mauled him. Luz came to Mateo's succor by
embracing him and pacifying his aggressors, but accusedappellants were unrelenting. More importantly, Mateo could not
have actually anticipated the sudden landing of a large concrete
stone on his head. The stone was thus treacherously struck.
Neither could the victim have been aware that Lito came up
beside him to stab his back as persons were beating him from
every direction. Lito's act of stabbing the victim with a knife,
inflicting a 15-cm deep wound shows deliberate intent of using a
particular means of attack. Considering the location of the injuries
sustained by the victim and the absence of defense wounds,
Mateo clearly had no chance to defend himself.
People v. Dumadag (2004)
Facts: Prudente with his friends including Meliston
agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate the feast of St.
John. On their way home, there was heavy downpour so they
decided to take a shelter at a store where 2 men, 1 of whom is
Dumadag are having some drinks. Dumadag offered Prudente a
drink of Tanduay but the latter refused then left. Dumadag
followed Prudented and stabbed the victim on his breast with a
knife which resulted to his death.
Held: As a general rule, a sudden attack by the
assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such
mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose
of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The
rule does not apply if the attack was not preconceived but merely

triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an act made by the

victim. In the present case, it is apparent that the attack was not
preconceived. It was triggered by the appellant's anger because
of the victim's refusal to have a drink with the appellant and his
companions.
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES
BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL
EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
IGNOMINY it is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the material injury caused by
the crime.
This AC is applicable to crimes against chastity and persons.
When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon grass
around his genital organ, he thereby augmented the wrong done
by increasing its pain and adding ignominy there to (People v.
Torrefiel).
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is not
ignominy but cruelty.
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must
tend to make the effects of the crime MORE HUMILIATING or TO
PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
ex. When the accused raped a married woman in the
presence of her husband.
People v. Siao (2000)
Facts: Estrella worked as a housemaid of Rene Siaos
family. One day, Rene ordered Reylan, their houseboy, to bring
Estrella to a room. While holding a gun, Rene forced Reylan to
have sex with Estrella (oral sex, missionary position, and in the
manner dogs perform sexual intercourse).
Held: The accused was held guilty of rape with the use
of a deadly weapon, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death. But the trial court overlooked and did not take into account
the aggravating circumstance of ignominy and sentenced accused
to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. It has been
held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only
the missionary position, the AC of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.
People v. Siao (2000)
Facts: Accused-appellant Siao forced and intimidated at
gunpoint his household helpers Raymundo, a 14 year old girl from
the province and 17 year old Gimena to have carnal knowledge of
each other. Siao commanded Gimena to rape Raymundo in 3
different positions, pointing a handgun at them the whole time.
Both performed the sexual act because they were afraid to be
killed. Both Siao and Gimena were charged with the crime of rape
but while Gimena was acquitted, Siao was convicted by the RTC.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of ignominy is
present in this case. Where the accused in committing the rape
used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female
inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from
behind, as was proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the commission
thereof.
People v. Cachola (2004)
Facts: Jessie was about to leave their house to watch
cartoons in his uncle's house next door when accused suddenly
entered the front door of their house. They ordered Jessie to drop
to the floor, and then hit him in the back with the butt of a long
gun. Without much ado, the intruders shot to death Jessie's uncle,
Victorino who was then in the living room. Jessie forthwith
crawled and hid under a bed, from where he saw the feet of a
third man who had also entered the house. The men entered the
kitchen and continued shooting. When the rampage was over and
after the malefactors had already departed, Jessie came out of his
hiding place and proceeded to the kitchen. There he saw his
mother, Carmelita; his brother Felix.; and his cousin Rubenson
all slaughtered. The death certificate of Victorino reveals that his
penis was excised.
Held: Ignominy cannot be appreciated in this case. For
ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be

committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more

humiliating, thus adding to the victim's moral suffering. Where the
victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was
dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. In
this case, the information states that Victorino's sexual organ was
severed after he was shot and there is no allegation that it was
done to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. We cannot,
therefore, consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.
People v. Bumidang (2000)
Facts: Baliwang Bumidang raped Gloria in front of her 80
year old father, Melecio. Melecio helplessly saw the accused rape
her daughter but did not move because he was too afraid and
weak. Before raping the victim, Baliwang examined the genitals of
Gloria with a flashlight.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall
be taken into account if means are employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
offense; or if the crime was committed in a manner that tends to
make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her
moral suffering. It was established that Baliwang used the
flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before he ravished
her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria's old
father. These facts clearly show that Baliwang deliberately wanted
to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding
her moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a
woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or of her
husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete
nakedness before they raped her.
Par. 18. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN
UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN
ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR
WINDOW BE BROKEN.
There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way
not intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for
escape.
There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken and
thereafter the accused made an entry thru the broken door. The
breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.
RATIONALE FOR PAR. 18: One who acts, not respecting the walls
erected by men to guard their property and provide for their
personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity;
hence, the law punishes him with more severity.
This AC is inherent in robbery with force upon things.
Dwelling and unlawful entry is taken separately in murders
committed in a dwelling.
Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling.
People v. Baello (1993)
Facts: Brgy. Captain Borja awoke one night to find out
that their front door was open and that their TV set was missing.
He and his wife saw their dead daughter lying in bed. The TV set
was recovered by the police at the house of Tadifo, Baellos
brother-in-law. Tadifo claimed that Baello and Jerry had an
agreement to rob the house of Borja. It was Jerry who killed
Borjas daughter because it was he who was left inside the house.
Held: The AC of unlawful entry was properly appreciated
against the accused as he and his companion, Jerry, had entered
the Borja residence through the second floor window, a way not
intended for ingress.
Par. 19 - THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN
ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR
WINDOW BE BROKEN.
To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be utilized
as a means to the commission of the crime.
It is only aggravating in cases where the offender resorted to
any of said means TO ENTER the house. If the wall, etc. is broken
in order to get out of the place, it is not aggravating.

Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) WITH THE

AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR (2) BY
MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT,
AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY
RA 5438).
(1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE
(2) BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
It is aggravating where the accused used the motor
vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the
effects thereof, and if facilitating their escape.
If the motor vehicle was used only in facilitating the
escape, it should not be an aggravating circumstance.
Estafa, which is committed by means of deceit or
abuse of confidence, cannot be committed by means of motor
vehicle.
Theft, which is committed by merely taking personal
property which need not be carried away, cannot be committed by
means of motor vehicles.
or other similar means the expression should be
understood as referring to MOTORIZED vehicles or other efficient
means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING
OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSIONS.
CRUELTY
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in
making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal
act.
For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed
and delighted in making his victim suffer.
REQUISITES:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by
causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the
execution of the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely intended
by offender.
Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.
There is no cruelty when other wrong was done after the victim
was dead.
IGNOMINY
Involves moral suffering.

CRUELTY
Refers to physical
suffering.

People v. Lacao (1974)

Facts: Gallardo, coming from a gathering, decided to go
home. As he was descending the stairs Balatazar followed him
and stabbed him with a knife at the right side of his body.
Baltazar tried to pull out the knife. Gallrado ran. When the latter
reached the bamboo grove, he was assaulted by David and his
son, Salvador, Jose and Federico. Gallardo sustained 14 wounds
by different bladed instruments. His assailants dragged him to the
field. He died later. It was found that each of the 9 wounds could
have caused his death if there were no timely medical assistance.
Held: The numerousness of wound is not the criterion
for appreciating cruelty. The test is whether the accused
deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing
another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly
increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his
person or corpse.
People v. Ilaoa (supra)
The fact that Nestors decapitated body bearing 43 stab
wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found dumped in the street
is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing
that appellant Ilaoa, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused
Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain. Number of wounds alone is

not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating

circumstance. Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that
the victims dead body was dismembered.
People v. Catian (2002)
Facts: Catian repeatedly strike Willy with a "chako" on
the head, causing Willy to fall on his knees. Calunod seconded by
striking the victim with a piece of wood on the face. When Willy
finally collapsed, Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over his
shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they burned Willy.
The latters skeletal remains were discovered by a child who was
pasturing his cow near a peanut plantation.
Held: The N circumstance of cruelty may no be
considered as there is no showing that the victim was burned
while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist, there must be proof
showing that the accused delighted in making their victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and moral
pain in the consummation of the criminal act. No proof was
presented that would show that accused-appellants deliberately
and wantonly augmented the suffering of their victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002)
Appellant first severed the victim's head before his
penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has
to be ruled out for it connotes an act of deliberately and
sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not
necessary for its commission, or inhumanely increasing the
victim's suffering. As testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in
her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head
being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act
constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was perpetrated
when the victim was already dead.

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Republic Act 8353
An act expanding the definition of the crime of rape,
reclassifying the same as a crime against persons, amending for the
purpose act no. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the revised
penal code, and for other purposes
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The
Anti-Rape Law of 1997".
SECTION 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons. - The
crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime Against Persons
under Title Eight of Act 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title
Eight of the same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three
on Rape, to read as follows:
"Chapter Three Rape"
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is Committed1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present;
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into other person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim

has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape
is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the commonlaw spouse of the parent of the victim.
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or
military authorities or any law enforcement of penal institution.
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse,
parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil
degree of consanguinity.
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate
religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the
offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime.
(5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old.
(6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human
Immune-Deficiency
Virus
(HIV)/Acquired
Immune
Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the
virus or disease is transmitted to the victim.
(7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or paramilitary units thereof or the Philippine National
Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of
the crime.
(8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the
victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability.
(9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
(10) When the offender knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at
the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or
by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to
reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is
committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent valid
marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent
forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty. Provided, That the crime shall be
extinguish or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab
initio.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the
offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render
her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A."
SECTION 3. Separability Clause.- If any part, section, or provision
of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts
thereof not affected thereby shall remain valid.
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause.- Article 335 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, and all laws, acts presidential decrees, executive orders,
administrative orders, rules and regulations, inconsistent with or

contrary to the provisions of this Act are deemed amended, modified

or repealed accordingly.
SECTION 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after completion of its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.

People v. Balgos (2000)

Facts: Balgos was accused of raping a 6-year old child
named Criselle. While the victim was playing, the accused asked
his nieces to go outside and buy cheese curls. When they left, the
accused opened his zipper and made Criselle hold his penis. The 2
girls came back and he asked them to go out and buy more
cheese curls. When they left, he locked the door and had carnal
knowledge with Criselle. The accused cannot penetrate the
victims organ. The lower court convicted the accused of qualified
rape.
Held: The trial court was correct. Under Art. 335 of the
RPC as amended by RA 7659 and further amended by RA 8353,
the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed against a child below 7 years of age. There is no
dispute that the victim was 6 years of age when the accused had
carnal knowledge with her.

People v. Ladjaalam (2000)

Facts: Accused who is maintaining a drug den fired an
unlicensed M-14 rifle at the policemen who were about to enter
his house to serve a search warrant.
Held: If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission
of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is murder or
homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an
aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this
case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession
of firearms.
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of
the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of RA 8294's simple
language is most favorable to herein appellant. Verily, no other
interpretation is justified, for the language of the new law
demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.
Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of 2 separate offenses
of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted
homicide. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not
homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be
deemed an aggravating circumstance.