by law upon the accused to the

CRIMINAL LAW max period without

ART. 14: AGGRAVATING exceeding the law
CIRCUMSTANCES Can't be offset by any May be proved over in
Aggravating Circumstances- if attendant to the mitigating defense
commission. Serve to increase the penalty w/out, circumstance  Merely forms
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty Must be alleged in part of the
provided greater perversity. the information. commission
1. Motivating power of the crime
 Integral part
2. The place of commission of the offense  does not
3. Means and ways employed violate
constitutional
4. The time.
rights of the
5. of personal circumstances of the offender to the accused
offended party.
If not alleged in the information, treachery is only
generic aggravating circumstance.
Refer to (People v. Evina): must be alleged to the
information and can be given retroactive effect since  treachery for murder if not alleged in the
statute regulating procedures of court will be construed information, may be used only for aggravating
as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the circumstance but not qualify for murder (People
time of passage may still be considered award for v. Alcantara).
damages - even though though not alleged
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO
NOT AFFECT THE PENALTY.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES 1. which in themselves constitute a crime
1. Generic- all crimes punishable by law
a. Example: dwelling, nighttime or 2. included by the law defining as crime and
recidivism prescribing the penally there for shall not be
2. Specific- Those that apply only to particular taken into account for the purpose of increasing
crimes the penalty.
a. Example: ignominy in crimes, against a. crime committed by fire (Art 14, par.
chastity or cruelty & treachery in 12) is arson (Art 321)
persons b. committed in dwelling of offended party
3. Qualifying- change the nature of the crime. (Art 14, par 3) or unlawful entry (Par19)
a. Example: alevosia or evident Art 299 in defining robbery,
premeditation qualifies the killing to
Same rule shall apply w/ respect to any aggravating
Murder (Art. 248)_
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that
4. Inherent- must of necessity accompany the
it must accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62 (2))
commission of the crime
a. evident premeditation in theft, estafa, adultery
a. Example: evident premeditation is
and concubinage
inherent robbery, theft, estafa, adultery
b. taking advantage of public position is in inherent
and concubinage
in crimes where offenders (public officers
commited the crime in exercise of their function,
QUALIFYING VS. GENERIC
(malversation & bribery),
Qualifying Generic
Give proper If not offset by any AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
exclusive name to the mitigating PERSONAL TO THE OFFENDERS.
crime deserve no circumstance, increase 1. from moral attributes of the offenders
other penalty that that the penalty which 2. from his private relations with offended ·party
specially prescribed should be imposed
 3. any other personal cause
- shall serve to aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and the accessories as
to whom such circumstances are attendant (Art
62. par 3).
a. A w/ evident premiditation gave B 1k to kill
CB Immediately killed C. Evident
premeditation shall only apply to A but. not
of B.
b. A who was previously convicted. by final
judgment of theft and committed. robbery.
Both were prosecuted and found. guilty after
trial. A was found a recidivist. It should only
aggravate A. but not B.
Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance arising from
personal cause.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
DEPEND FOR THEIR APPLICATION UPON
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFENDERS
1. material execution of the act
2. in the means employed to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate the liability of those. persons
only who had known ledge of them at the time.
of the execution of the act or their cooperation
there in (A.62.4)
1. If A had no knowledge of how B killed he
shall not be liable for an aggravating
circumstance
PAR 1: THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY
THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
BASIS: greater perversity as shown by the personal
circumstance of the offender; also by the means to
secure the crime
Aggravating only for PUBLIC OFFICER and he must
use influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office
gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose.
Question to be answered: "Did the accused abuse his
office to commit the crime?” (US v. Rodriguez)
Refer to US v. Dacuycuy: If a public officer committed a
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.
There must be proof that the accused took advantage of
his public position.
 Wearing uniform is immaterial in certain cases.
o when offended know that the person
accused is a policeman
Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of
office even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it has
proven that he has failed in his duties as such public
officer.
 VP joined a band of brigand (US v. Cagayan).
Not aggravating when it is an integral element of.
inherent in the offense.
 malversation (A. 217).
 falsification of document committed by public
officers. (A. 171) (People v. Tevez)
PAR 2: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
IN CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.
BASIS: greater perversity, lack of respect for public
authorities
REQUISITES
1. public authority is engaged in his functions
2. he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said
functions is not the. person against whom the
crime is, committed (US v. Rodriguez; People v.
Siojo)
3. offender knows him to be a public authority
4. Presence has not prevented their offender from
committing the criminal act
A & B are in a quarrel. A mayor passing by tries to
reconcile them, A killed B- A is guilty of homicide w/
aggravating. circ of contempt of public authority
Public Authority- person in authority public
 officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction,
that is a public officer who has the power to
govern and execute laws. (A 152, amended by
PD. NO. 1233)
 Not applicable when crime committed is the
presence of an agent only.
o Chief of police is only an agent of the
authorities and is not a public authority
(People v. Siojo; People v. Werzo)

Refer to ART 152 amended by BP Blg. 873- agent of a
person in authority "any person who, by direct provision
of taw or by election or by appointment by competent
authority, is charged with maintenance of public order
by the protection and security of life and property such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman. and barangay
leader and any person who, comes to the aids of persons
in authority.
The crime should not be committed against the public
authority
 It is a crime of direct assault. (A. 148) it is not a
crime committed in contempt of or with insult to
him, but a crime directly committed against him
(People v. Santok).
Lack of knowledge on the part of the that a public
authority is present lack of intention to insult the public
authority.
If A does not know a mayor is present during the
commission of the crime, it is not an aggravating
circumstance.
PAR 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 .
BASIS: greater perversity, shown by personal
circumstances of the offended party and the place of the
commission the crime
If all the Counted requisites are present it is counted as 1
aggravating circumstance.
Applicable only to crimes against persons or
Honor
 when in the commission of the crime there is
come insult or disrespect to age, rank, or sex.
 it is not proper to consider ting circumstance
Property
 Robbery w/ homicide is primarily. crime against
property with incidental crinie of homicide
(People V. Pagal)
WITH INSULT OR DISREGARD
- necessary to prove the specific fact or
circumstance, other than that the victim is a
woman (Example: an old man or of one w/ high
rank), showing insult or disregard of sex (or age
or rank). (People v. Valencia)
- There must be evidence in the commi-ssion of
the crime the accused deliberately intended to
offend or insult the sex or age of the offended
party (People v. Magsant).
1. rank of the offended party
- there must be a social difference between
offender and offended
a. private individual vs. mayor (public
authority)
b. Pupil vs. teacher
c. judge vs. person
"Rank"- high social position or standing. As a grade in
the armed forces or to a graded official standing or social
position or station to a grade or official standing relative
position in civil or social life, or in any scale
comparison, status grade. including its grade status or
scale of comparison within a position (People v. Rodil).
 there should be proof of the SPECIFIC FACT or
circumstance that the accused disregarded the
respect due to the offended, party (People v.
Talay)
2. Age of the offended party
- deliberate intent to offend or insult required
o not applicable to robbery w/ homicide
The circumstance applies to tender. age as well as to old
age (US v. Butag)
3. of the sex of the offended party
- refers to the female sex and not to the male sex
Refer to People v. Mangsant: Killing a woman is not
attended by this aggravating circumstance as the
offender did not manifest any specific insult or
disrespect towards her sex
Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of
evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend
or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest
disrespect to her womanhood (People v. Puno citing
People v. Magsant)
NOT APPLICABLE IN CERTAIN CASES
1. when the offender acted w/ passion and
obfuscation
2. when there exists a relationship. between parties
(People v. Valencia) 6 even pre-existing
relations. [People v. Akanatsu)
3. when the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the crime
a. rape or any sex crime (People v. Lopez)
b. parricide w/ relation
c. abduction
d. Seduction
Refer to People v. Clementer: Disregard of sex can be
absorbed in treachery
 treachery manner of the commission of the
crime
 disregard of sex and age pertains. to the
relationship of the victim
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Dwelling- must be a building or a EXCLUSIVELY for
sleeping or comfort.
Refer to (People v. Magnaye): a combination of house
and store is not a dwelling.
WHY? Sanctity and privacy of one's dwelling is a
sanctuary worthy of respect (People v. Palansi)
WHAT AGGRAVATES THE CRIME IN ONE'S
DWELLING
1. the abuse of confidence which the offended
reposed in the offender by opening the door to
him
2. the violation of the sanctity home by the passing
therein with violence or against the will of the
owner (Dissenting opinion of Justice Villareal,
People v. Ambis)
Offended party must NOT GIVE
PROVOCATION
Provocation must be:
1. given by the owner of the dwelling
2. sufficient
3. immediate to the commission of the crime
There must be close relation between provocation and
commission of crime in the dwelling.
* Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling
this circumstance applies
 it is enough that the victim was attacked inside.
So even though the perp shot the gun outside, if
the victim is inside the house, the aggravating
circumstance in dwelling can be applied. (People
v.. Ompaid)
JURISPRUDENCE
 where the accused began the aggression upon
the person of the deceased in the latter’s
dwelling by binding his hand or by dragging
him from his house and after taking him to a
place near the house he killed him. dwelling is
aggravating, since the act performed can’t be
divided (US v. Lastimosa)
 Dwelling is aggravating in abduction. or illegal
detention if the victim was. taken from her or his
house. and. carried away to another place,
dwelling. is aggravating (us v. Banila)
 Though not aggravating if he was called down
from his house and he was murdered in the
vicinity of the house of the offended.
 Dwelling includes dependencies, foot of the
staircase and enclosure under the house (US v.
Tapan)
 when the deceased, had 2 houses where he used
to live the commission of the crime in any of
them is attended by the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling (People v. Rodriguez)
DWELLING NOT AGGRAVATING
1. When both offender and offended party are
occupants of the same house (US v. Rodriguez),
this is true even if the offender is a servant of the
house (People v. Caliso)
a. dwelling not aggravating in rape where
the accused and the offended party are
 domiciled in. same house (People v.
Morales)
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of
force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent (US v. Cas)
a. But dwelling is aggravating in robbery
with violence against or intimidation of
persons, because this can be
accomplished w/out entering a person's
dwelling (People v. Cabato)
b. Robbery with intimidation of persons
(ART 294)
c. robbery with force upon things in
inhabited house (ART 299)
3. Trespassing it is in the nature of the crime to
enter in a dwelling of another.
4. When the owner gave sufficient and immediate
provocation
5. When the dwelling does not belong to. the
victim. (People v. Gubiting)
6. Combination of stove and house. (People v.
Taño)
Dwelling as aggravating.
1. boarding house (People v. Daniel)
2. parental home and stayed as guests, But in
People v. Ramolete, visitors can't be the victim
if the aggravating circumstance is to be applied
by dwelling.
3. Dwelling can be temporary (People v.. Badilla)
Adultery (Art. 333) - aggravating if done in the dwelling
of the husband (cheated on), cheater's breach of fidelity
she owes to her husband and violated the respect due to
the conjugal home and they both thereby injured against
the head of the house (People v. Ibanez)
 If the paramour lives there also, it will not be
aggravating.
Dwelling is not included in treachery. (People v. Ruzol)
ARTICLE 14, PAR 4: THAT THE ACT BE
COMMITTED WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.
BASIS: means and ways employed
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
When offended party trusted the offender who later
abuses trust through crime
REQUISITES
1. Offended had trust to the offender
2. offender abused such trust by committing a
crime
3. abuse of confidence facilitated the crime
Betrayal of confidence not aggravating- confidence from
other person not
offended
Confidence between offender and offended must
personal and immediate
Abuse of confidence is inherent in some felonies
1. malversation. (A. 217)
2. qualified theft (A.310)
3. estafa by conversion or misappropriation (A. 315)
4. qualified seduction (A. 337)
Example: Consider a ‘kasambahay’ (domestic helper)
and their employer. In this relationship, there is an
inherent trust. If the kasambahay were to steal from the
employer, this would constitute both theft and an abuse
of confidence.
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
For this offense to occur, the offender must have
received favors from the victim.
Ungratefulness must be obvious i.e. manifest and clear.
Example: Suppose an individual helps a homeless man
by allowing him to spend the night in their house. If the
homeless man were to commit an offense against the
individual, it would not be considered an abuse of
confidence since he was only allowed to stay for one
night. However, it could be seen as obvious
ungratefulness, given that the individual had done him a
favor.
ARTICLE 14, 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 .
BASIS: place of the commission of the crime which must
be respected.
PLACE WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE DUTIES (PAR 5) VS. CONTEMPT/INSULT TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (PAR 2)
Place where public authorities Contempt/insult to public
 are engaged in the discharge authorities (par 2). For the purpose of impunity means to him being recognized
duties (par 5) or himself against detection and punichment (People v.
Both must be in the performance of duties Matbagon)
Must be in their office Can be outside their office
May be the offended party Can’t be the offended Nighttime period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and
party ending at dawn from sunset to sunrise. (Art 13 Civil code)
PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
 can't be aggrav. by itself must be sought by the
The location of the crime being the Malacanang Palace offender
doesn’t depend on whether the President is there or not.  not aggravating if the crime started at daytime, the
PRESIDENT’S PRESENCE crime must began and finish in the darkness of the
night
If the President is present, it doesn’t matter where he is.
Note: This will prevail over Paragraph 2, as it is more specific. Objective and Subjective Test
RELIGIOUS PLACES ● Objective- crime is committed during sunset to
sunrise
For churches, mosques, etc., it’s necessary that the
offender sought to commit the crime in these places, not  Subjective- darkness is used for advantage
merely incidental to the crime.
Refer to the case: People v. Jaurigue, where the crime UNINHABITED PLACE
was only incidental to the commission of the crime.
Where there are no houses at all, with considerable distance
Religious worships church only, not cemetery (People v.
from town or where houses are scattered from each other.
Anonuevo)
● The offender can’t get help from others.
ARTICLE 14, PAR 6: THAT THE CRIME BE ● Objective and Subjective Test apply.
COMMITTED IN THE NIGHTTIME, OR IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE, OR BY A BAND, Crime done in an uninhabited with mitigating
WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY circumstance of passion can’t be aggravating since the
FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE
place should be specially sought for in the commision of
OFFENSE.
the crime.
Nighttime and by a band are considered separately (People v.
Cunanan) Whether or not the victim can ask for
 elements are distinct and can subsist independently help so if there's a house but there are no people to help
him aggravating, since the offenders can escape easily.
REQUISITES
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime BY A BAND
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure - more than 3. armed malefactors and they acted
the commission. of the crime or for the purpose of together for the commission of an offense
impunity (People v. Pardo)
3. When the offender took advantage there of for the in Arms, stone is included (People v. Manlolo), capable
purpose of impunity (US v. Billedo) of inflicting fatal injuries (People v. Lozano)
NIGHTTIME If one is principal by inducement it's not a band, the
- THE TIME OF SUNSET TO SUNRISE. principal. no direct participation.
has
● The offender has sought the advantage of the
darkness to conceal his identity considered in crimes against property and against
● The crime should not be committed in a well-lit persons (People v. Laoto, People v.
area (People v. Joson) - not applicable in crimes against chastity (People v.
Corpus)
What's especially sought for is the purpose of impunity and
took advantage thereat tests for application of the aggravating
circumstances. - abuse of superior strength and firearms is
absorbed
- The crime during nighttime should be intended
Requisites 1. when both parties are armed
1. 4 malefactors 2. when the accused cooperated with the commission of
2. all were armed the same plan for same purpose
3. took part and acted together in the commission
of the crime AID OF ARMED MEN. (PAR 8) V. BY A
Band is inherent in Brigandage BAND (PAR 6)
Aid of Armed Men By a Band
As a generic crime, applies to any crime as a qualifying At least 2 At least 4
applies to robbery with unnecessary violence. if there are 4 armed men, the Must all be principals by
circumstance will be absorbed direct participation
PAR 7: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON in employment of a band
THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, accomplices only must hot act
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR in the same
purpose.
OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.

BASIS : Time of the commission PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD

Crime during these times adds to their suffering (US v.
Rodriguez)
Does not automatically aggravate the crime. The offender must take
advantage of it. If it’s merely incidental, it will not apply.
IMPUNITY
offender purposely sought or relied upon persons to secure
him against detection and punishment
- persons are not required to be armed

Example: During an earthquake, someone steals from a store. This PAR 9: THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.
can be considered as aggravating.
A RECIDIVIST IS ONE WHO, AT THE TIME OF
Other calamity or misfortune- refers to other conditions of HIS TRIAL FOR ONE CRIME, SHALL HAVE
distress. Thus, chaotic conditions after liberation is not BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED BY FINAL
included. JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER CRIME EMBRACED IN
THE SAME TITLE OF THIS CODE.
THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
PAR 8:
BASIS inclination to Crimes.
WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR
PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD The offender has been convicted for 2 crimes, both of which are
embraced in the same title of the code.
IMPUNITY
The dates of the time committed are considered.
BASIS: means and ways.

Armed men- persons w/ weapon, including women (People v. FORMS OF REPETITION

Licop) Quasi- when the 1st crime If
recidivism offender has may be a released
(A.160) been previously felony or na Hindi
REQUISITES Special convicted offense, na pwede
aggravating Special by final but the
1. Armed men are accomplices (mere accomplices and circumstance- judgment and second
not principal thus can’t be in a conspiracy) who took can’t be offset before. must be a
part in minor capacity in the crime by mitigating Aggravating felony,
serving sentence Not
2. He availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
of unile necessary
when the crime was committed (People v. Lozano) Circumstance that 1st and
a. mere moral or psych reliance is sufficient serving he 2nd are
committed a same
This refers to persons aiding impunity, not actually committing the felony. crimes
crime.
On separate Should be
Recidivism
occasions is convicted
Example: X killing Y, with bodyguards to prevent anyone from (ART 14, 9) convicted of 2 (final
killing X. offenses in the decision
Generic same title of the of the
Not considered when: Aggravating RPC court in
 the 1st JURISPRUDENCE
offense
Reiteracion Offender has When the Dapat - Offenses on same date is considered as one crime
(A.14, 109) been previously offender released (Galang v. People), same if both final convications
Generic punished for an has served na
offense which sentence.
were handed the same day.
Aggravating - Increases penalties by degrees nad not periods
the law attaches The 1st
an equal or offense w/ - Same conviction the offender is also a habitual
greater penalty equal or
for 2 crimes for greater delinquent, both can be appreciated but cannot be
which it attaches penalty or used to determine the additional penalty for HD
a lighter penalty he - If both recidivist and quasi-recidivist on same
committed
2 or more
conviction, the latter will prevail since it is special.
crimes - If the 1st offense was pardoned and still committed 2 nd
previously felony in the same title of RPC, he is still a recidivist
where the
(People v. Lacao)
penalty is
lighter o Since pardon did not obliterate his prior
conviction
Habitual Doesn’t Additiona - Amnesty considers previous transgressions as not
Within 10 years
Delinquency apply to l penalty
from the date of violations lang punishable
(Art. 62, Par. his release is of special
5)
found. guilty of penal PAR 10. REITERACION- THAT THE OFFENDER
Extraordinary laws- drug
the said crimes HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN
Aggravating violator
for a 3rd time
can’t be a OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN
(Falsification,
habitual EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO
Robbery, Estafa,
delinquent OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A
theft, less
serious or LIGHTER PENALTY.
Sevious Physical
Injuries. BASIS inclination to Crimes.
(FRETSel))
REQUISITES
1. the 1st crime and second crime may not be from the same
REQUISITES title of the code
a. any crime
1. The offender is on Trial for an offense. 2. the offender must have been convicted and also served
a. What is controlling is the time of his trial,
sentence for it
not the time of the commission of the crime.
3. “Lighter penalty” is not based on the penalty imposed but
It is not required that at the time of the
on the penalty attached to the crime
commission of the crime, the accused should
have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime. PAR 11: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
b. In recidivism, it is sufficient that the
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR
succeeding. offense be committed after the
PROMISE.
commission of the preceding offense
provided that at the time of his trial for the The offender moves to commit a crime because he was given
second offense, the accused had already something
been convicted of the first offense. (People
v. Lagarto) Price, reward, or promise- need not consist of material
2. He was Previously convicted by final judgment of things as long as it is the one that encouraged the person to
another crime. commit the crime
a. "Final judgment" means it is executory
Appreciated in both: receiver of gifts and the giver the gifts
3. Both the first and the second offenses are embraced
in the Same title of the Code 2 PRINCIPALS:
a. YEARS DOESN’T MATTER between the 1. Principal by inducement: the one giving the gifts to induce
first and second felonies (People v. the offender to commit the crime by direct participation
Jaranilla) 2. Offender itself
4. The offender is Convicted of the new offense.
Taken into consideration: The offender wouldn’t have done the crime Essence: the execution must be preceded by cool thought
if not for the price, reward or promise. and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the intent
 Doesn’t matter if the price is given after the commission of (People v. Durante)
the crime but what matters is that the moving force is the
price itself
Premeditation must be "evident."
PAR 12: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF INUNDIATION, FIRE, POISON, Requisites
EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, 1. The time when the offender determined to
DERAILMENT OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE commit the crime
USE OF ANY ARTIFICE INVOLVING WASTE
AND RUIN 2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination
BASIS: By means and ways employed 3. A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to
When any other aggravating circumstance qualifies reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
the crime, any of these aggravating circumstance allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
shall be considered as generic aggravating of his will. (People vs. Lagarto)
circumstance only
JURISPRUDENCE
ARSON V. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE BY MEANS OF FIRE SECOND REQUISITE EXISTS IN:
1. When the crime was carefully planned by the
Arson (A. 326 The Main objective is offenders, offenders previously prepared the
resulting homicide is burning the building means which they considered adequate to carry it
absorbed) but death results by out. (U.S. vs. Cornejo
reason 2. When the defendants made repeated statements
Murder (A.248) Main objective is to kill that the hour of reckoning of the victim would
a person in a building arrive and armed themselves with deadly
and fire is resorted to weapons. (People vs. Lopez)
accomplish the goal 3. When the defendant commenced to sharpen his
Homicide/Murder and If the deed of killing is bolo on the afternoon preceding the night of the
crime. (U.S. vs. Liwakas)
Arson (Separate done and fire is
Crimes) resorted to conceal the
4. The defendant, according to his own confession,
killing three times attempted to take the life of the
deceased in order to be able to marry his widow,
with whom he was in love. (People vs. Ducusin)

PAR 13: THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
EVIDENCE PREMEDITATION.
BASIS: has reference to the ways of committing the
crime, because evident premeditation implies
deliberate planning of the act before executing it
There is an overt act manifesting the premeditation.
There is a sufficient lapse of time intended to show that
there is time to desist, he planned and committed the
crime.
Mere threats without the second element does not show
evident premeditation.
a SUFFICIENT TIME?
1. People vs. Lasafin: Three days of premeditation.
2. People vs. Mojica: A month to plan revenge.
3. People vs. Dosal: One day to prepare for an
attack.
4. U.S. vs. Gil and People vs. Diaz: Over half a day
for reflection.
5. People vs. Lazada: Four hours between rage and
aggression.
6. People vs. Mostoles: 3.5 hours from planning to
crime.
 7. People vs. Berdida: Four hours from
apprehension to crime.
“Sufficient lapse of time”
1. People vs. Gausi: Three hours was sufficient.
2. U.S. vs. Blanco: A quarter-hour was insufficient.
3. People vs. Pantoja: Half an hour was
insufficient.
4. People vs. Dumdum, Jr.: One hour was
sufficient.
5. People vs. Crisostomo: Two hours was
insufficient.
Interval should be long enough for the offender’s
conscience and better judgment to overcome their evil
intent (People vs. Mendoza)
PREMEDITATION IN CIRCUMSTANCES
Conspiracy usually implies premeditation. If a
conspiracy is directly proven, with evidence of
deliberation and selection of the method, time, and
means of executing the crime, evident premeditation is
assumed (U.S. vs. Cornejo; People vs. Timbang).
 EXCEPT: However, when a conspiracy is only
implied, evident premeditation may not be
recognized. (People vs. Custodio; People vs.
Upao Moro).
Evident premeditation and price or reward can coexist,
as they are not incompatible. The former often implies
the latter.
When the victim differs from the intended target,
premeditation is not aggravating or error in personae
(People vs. Mabug-at, People vs. Guillen, People vs.
Hilario). Yet, in People vs. Timbol; US v. Manalinde,
premeditation was present even when a different person
was killed, as the conspirators intended to kill anyone
who might resist.
PAR 14: THAT CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE
EMPLOYED.
BASIS: means employed
CRAFT
Intellectual trickery
- characterized by intellectual trickery or cunning.
It is employed by criminals to carry out their
plans and varies depending on the
circumstances.
Exceptions
1. When the accused was practically in a stupor
during the crime.
2. When a regular driver feigned illness to enable
another driver to commit a crime.
Craft is present in scenarios such as:
1. When a group premeditates to kill a man in an
uninhabited place.
2. When the accused pretends to be bona fide
passengers in a taxicab.
3. Pretending to be an authority figure to gain
entrance and commit lascivious acts (People vs.
Timbol).
4. Posing as soldiers to gain entry into victims’
place (People vs. Saquing).
5. Creating a distraction to steal a wallet (People
vs. Bagtas).
6. Asking to change a bill as a ruse to snatch a
wallet (People vs. Mallari).
7. Using innocent-looking candies containing
drugs to commit rape (People vs. Guy).
8. Luring a victim out of his house to be killed
(People vs. Barbosa).
9. Pretending to accompany a victim home in a
friendly manner to commit murder (People vs.
Molleda).
However, if the crime could have been committed
without the deception, craft is not considered, as stated
in “People vs. Aspili”.
According to Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, craft
cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance if it is
an inherent element of the offense.
 The presence of craft is disputed in cases where
the perpetrators did not conceal their intentions,
as seen in “People vs. Cunanan”.
FRAUD
Insidious words that can be aggravating or inherent.
- defined as the use of insidious words or
machinations to enable the offender to carry out
his design. This is illustrated in the cases U.S.
vs. Abelinde and U.S. vs. Bundal, where the
victims were deceived into a vulnerable position
before being attacked.
Refer to in People vs. De Leon: the stepfather of the
victim used deceit to abduct the girl and commit a crime.
This was deemed as employing fraud
 - In the case of estafa, it’s inherent
CRAFT VS. FRAUD
Fraud involves direct inducement through insidious
words or machinations. On the other hand, craft is
present when the accused acts in a way that doesn’t
arouse the victim’s suspicion.
DISGUISE
Any device used so that persons will not recognize the offenders.
 If ineffective, it will not be appreciated.
 Must prevent the identification of the offenders.
Aggravating circumstance when:
1. The defendant blackened his face to avoid
recognition (U.S. vs. Cofrada).
2. The defendant covered his face with a
handkerchief before committing the crime (People
vs. Piring).
3. Accused wore masks to hide their identities
(People vs. Cabato).
4. The defendant illegally wore a Constabulary
uniform (People vs. Gonzalez).
5. The accused used an assumed name in a libel
publication (People vs. Adamos).
PAR 15. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR MEANS BE
EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.
BASIS: means employed
“Taking advantage”
refers to the use of excessive force that is
disproportionate to the means of defense available to the
person being attacked (i.e. individual takes advantage of
their superior strength)
● If there is a preplanned quarrel, the abuse of superior
strength is not present because there is consent, waiving the
abuse of superior strength.
There are instances where superior strength does not
provide an advantage:
1. When an individual attacks another with passion
and obfuscation.
2. When a quarrel arises unexpectedly, and the
fatal blow is struck when both parties are
engaged as equals.
3. When there is a preplanned quarrel, since there
is consent given by both parties
However, there are also instances where superior
strength is abused:
1. When a strong individual ill-treats a vulnerable
person such as a child, an elderly, or a person
weakened by disease or intoxicants.
2. When an unarmed and intoxicated individual is
attacked by a physically stronger person.
3. When the victims are innocent and young
children, and the offender takes advantage of
their physical strength.
However, the use of superior strength should not be
considered if all the accused delivered blows upon the
victim alternately, one after the other. This is because the
attack was made on the victim alternately, not
simultaneously.
CIRCUMSTANCES IN ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
The concept of “abuse of superior strength”
refers to situations where an individual or
group uses their collective strength to
overpower a relatively weaker victim. This is
often considered in cases where there is a
notable inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, taking into account
factors such as age, size, and strength.
However, it’s not automatically considered in
every case of multiple aggressors or in cases
of parricide, where it’s generally accepted that
the husband is physically stronger than the
wife.
“Numerical superiority” doesn’t always
equate to abuse of superior strength. The
accused must cooperate in a way to secure
advantage from their combined strength. If
they didn’t conspire to kill the victim, it
implies they didn’t jointly exploit their
superior strength.
“By a band” refers to offenses committed by
more than three armed malefactors, regardless
of the comparative strength of the victim or
victims. The essential elements are at least
four malefactors, all of whom are armed.
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in
crimes like coercion, forcible abduction,
illegal detention, robbery with rape, multiple
rape, and robbery with homicide, when the
offenders use a force greatly in excess of that
required to commit the offense, and the
victims are defenseless and/or unsuspecting.
However, “abuse of superior strength” is absorbed and
inherent in treachery, which means it’s not considered
separately when there’s an allegation of treachery.
Similarly, “by a band” is also absorbed in treachery. It’s
important to note that the key factor in “abuse of superior
strength” is the relative physical might of the offenders and
the victim or victims, not the number or the weapons of the
offenders.
Changes the nature of the crime, doesn’t increase the
homicide yet stops the homicide and changes it to
murder.
 If there is treachery, homicide will become
murder.
● Qualified theft: Theft with abuse of confidence,
the latter qualifies the crime to qualified theft.
● It was not always automatic - even if the attack
is frontal as long as the victim is surprised.
● Refer to the case: People v. Escote, where
robbery with homicide, crimes against property,
treachery is appreciated in homicide but didn’t
change it to murder, the ruling is only general
aggravating.
● Can be applied to age, rank, or sex.

“Employing means to weaken the defense” is applicable Refer to the case: Merc Ops, where robbery with serious
only to crimes against persons, and sometimes against physical injuries, it is possible to have treachery in the
person and property, such as robbery with physical crime as per People v. Escote, as long as treachery is
injuries or homicide. only applied as a generic aggravating circumstance.

 Intoxicating the victim to weaken the defense is Treachery ABSORBS

an aggravating circumstance that exists when the
offender deliberately makes the victim drunk 1. Craft
with the intention to kill them, thereby reducing 2. Abuse of superior strength
their ability to resist.
3. Nighttime
 This circumstance is applicable only to crimes
against persons, and sometimes against person 4. Aid of Armed Men
and property, such as robbery with physical 5. Band
injuries or homicide. 6. Employing means to weaken the defense

PAR 16. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY VS. EVIDENT
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA). PREMEDITATION
Evident Premeditation: Cool thought and reflection
BASIS: means employed Treachery: swiftness and unexpectedness of the attack
upon unsuspecting and unarmed victim who diddn’t give
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the slightest provocation
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 THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR
PAR 17.
arising from the defense which the offended party might CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT
make.
WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE
A specific aggravating circumstance. NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.

Against persons, not property. BASIS: means employed

Example: Attack from behind, wasn’t able to defend Additional moral suffering inflicted on the person (People v.
himself. Carmina)

TREACHERY AS QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Circumstance pertaining to the moral order which
adds, disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
caused by the crime
Not to be appreciated when the offended is dead nor
in a coma (People v. Carmina)
Ignominy applies to:
1. Against chastity
2. Less serious physical injuries
3. Light or grave coercion
4. Murder
5. Rape
Robbery with homicide aape is committed, rape will
be considered as ignominy (People v. Tapales)
Under 9262: If sexual or physical violence is
committed against a woman with whom the accused
ahs marital, dating or sexual relationship, in the
presence of her child, the penalty shall be imposed
on its maximum period, this is an special aggra
circumstance.
Example: exhibit nakedness before rape; unusual
position in raping her (dogstyle)
PAR 18. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY. THERE IS AN
UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE IS
AFFECTED BY A WAY NOT INTENDED FOR THE
PURPOSE.
BASIS: means employed
Unlawful entry when an entrance not for escape is
effected by a way not intended for the purpose
Inherent in:
1. Robbery with the use of force upon
things
2. Trespass to dwelling
3. Violation of Domicile
4. Evasion of service sentence
5. Robbery in uninhabited place
6. Robbery with homicide
7. Robbery in an uninhabited place or ina
private building
DWELLING VS. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
Unlawful entry- means and ways the crime was
committed
Dwelling- place where the crime is committed
Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders
committed in a dwelling (2 aggrav circumstances)
But unlawful entry is inherent in trespass to dwelling.
PAR 19: THAT AS A MEANS TO THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF,
FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.
BASIS: means employed
UNLAWFUL ENTRY VS. BREAKING OF
WALL, ROOF (ETC)
Unlawful entry- no such breaking happened
Breaking of wall- involves breaking of the
enumerated parts of the house
It is not necessary for the offender to enter the
building
PAR 20: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN
YEARS OF AGE OR BY MEANS OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR
MEANS.
BASIS: means employed
AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF
AGE
Tends to repress, the frequent practice resorted by professional
criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of
their irresponsibility
MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS,
OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
Intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
criminals in said means to commit crime and flee and abscond UNDER SPL
once the same is committed.
Use of Loose Firearms (RA10591)- when inherent to the
Deliberately used for: commission of the crime (Sec 29)

1. Going to the place of the crime
2. Carrying away the effects tehreof
3. In facilitating their escape (People v. Espejo)
Meaning of other similar means- it should be understood as
referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means of
transportation similar to cars or airplane
Influence of drugs (RA 9165)- a crime is committed under the
influence of drugs (Sec 25)
Organized/ Syndicated Crime /Group (RA 7659)- (Sec 23)- 2
or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually
helping one another in the commission of any crime involving
gain or profit

PAR 21: CRUELTY-- THAT THE WRONG DONE Crimes involving gain or profit; (TERI)
IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE
1. Theft
DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING
2. Estafa
OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS
3. Robbery
COMMISSION .
4. Illegal Recruitment

BASIS: means employed ART. 15: ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his
victims suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical
ART. 15. THEIR CONCEPT. — ALTERNATIVE
pain. In the consummation of the criminal act (People v. Dayug)
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THOSE WHICH MUST BE
REQUISITES: TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS
1. The injury cause dbe deliberately increased by causing the AGGRAVATING OR MITIGATING ACCORDING
other wrong TO THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF THE
2. Other wrong be unnecessary for the execution ofd the CRIME AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS
purpose of the offender ATTENDING ITS COMMISSION. THEY ARE THE
RELATIONSHIP, INTOXICATION AND THE
Even if the person is dead, and he mutilated the corpse, this can
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
qualify the killing to murder (People v. Balisteros)
OF THE OFFENDER.
Wounds must be found in the body. THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF
RELATIONSHIP SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
CRUELTY VS. IGNOMINY CONSIDERATION WHEN THE OFFENDED
Cruelty- physical suffering
PARTY IN THE SPOUSE, ASCENDANT,
Ignominy- moral suffering DESCENDANT, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL, OR
ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTER, OR RELATIVE
CRUELTY VS. TREACHERY
BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES OF THE
Cruelty- cruel act is not necessary to the commission of the OFFENDER. C H A N R O B L E S V I R T U A L L A W L I B R A R Y

crime; intention is prolong suffering of the victim

THE INTOXICATION OF THE OFFENDER SHALL
Treachery- treacherous act is necessary to the crime: intention BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS A
is to render the victim defenseless to insure commission of the MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE
crime OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED A FELONY IN A
STATE OF INTOXICATION, IF THE SAME IS
Outraging and scoffing at a corpse is aggravating (Art. 248 NOT HABITUAL OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE
par. 6) PLAN TO COMMIT SAID FELONY BUT WHEN
 Outrage means to subject to gross insult. THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL OR
 Scoff means to show contempt by derisive acts INTENTIONAL, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
1. In scoffing, a person must be dead AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. C H A N
RELATIONSHIP
When the offended party is the — (a) spouse, ascendant, (c)
descendant, (d) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender.