Art.

14 Aggravating Circumstances

There is treachery when an offender commits a crime against the person employing means, methods
and forms it its execution directly intended to ensure to its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense the offended party might make.

1- Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

Offender must use his influence, prestige, ascendency to realize his purpose. Did the offender
abuse his office to commit the crime?
2- In contempt of or with insult to public authorities
Requisites: EIKP
Public authority is engaged in his functions.
Public authority is not the person whom the crime is committed
Offender knows him to be a public authority
The presence of the public authority does not prevent the commission of the crime
Public authority is not the victim, aggravating circumstance is due to his being a public authority
and a crime was committed without the respect of his authority and presence.
An agent of a person in authority – NOT Aggravating ex. Chief of police, brgy. tanod
3- Disregard of Rank, age, sex, dwelling of the offended party
Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult is required (rank, age, sex)
Dwelling without provocation – Aggravating
Requisites: The provocation is given by the owner, sufficient and immediate to commission of
the crime. PROVOCATION NEGATES DWELLING. – provocation should be given by the owner,
sufficient and immediate to the commission of the crime.
4- Abused of confidence or Obvious Ungratefulness
- The offended party trusts the offender,
- The offender abused such trust, and
- The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.
*It must be a high level of confidence.
THE CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE OFFENDER AN DHTE OFFENDED PARTY MUST BE
IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL.
5- Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, Public Authorities engaged in the discharge of
duties, or in a place dedicated to public worship.
OFFICIAL OR RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS, NOT NECESSARY
OFFENDER MUST HAVE INTENTION TO COMMITE A CRIME WHEN HE ENTERED
THE PLACE.
6- Nighttime, Uninhabited place, Band
Nighttime to be aggravating 3 requisites:
1- Especially Sought for by the offender
2- Taken advantage by the offender
3- To facilitate the commission of the crime and ensure the offenders immunity from capture.

- When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
Uninhabited place – impossibility to receive help.
*Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose. I.e for an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment or to insure concealment of the offense
The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength are absorbed in
treachery.

Band – more than three armed men acted together in committing the offense. THE more than 3-
armed men should act together in the commission of the offense. If only 2 are armed – not
Aggravating. EN Coudarilla
By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of illegal
detention or treason
*Not applicable to crimes against chastity
*Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in aggravating circumstance of “by a
band”

7- On the occasion Conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or

misfortune.
- The rule here is that the offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune in
the commission of the crime. Requisite is Chaotic condition as aggravating circumstance.

8- Aid of armed men

Should be accomplice only not co-principals or it will be conspiracy.
Requisites:
1- Armed men or persons participated in the commission of the crime directly or indrectly.
2- The accused availed of the aid of the armed men or relied upon them the commission of the
crime.

EXCEPTIONS
(1) This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed. (Albert)
(2) This aggravating circumstance 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.

9- Recidivism

Recidivism, requisites.

1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense
pardon does not prevent a former conviction from being considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
 10- Reiteracion or Habituality
1. The accused is on trial;
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for
the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.
Instead of conviction, here, its service of sentence. It does not
have to be embraced in the same title, what is important is the
penalty. So it8s either equal or greater for one offense, you
have previously served a sentence for one offense, which has
an equal or greater penalty. Or a lighter penalty but it must be
two or more crimes.

11- In consideration of a price, money or promise

The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of the offender in committing the
crime.
Both giver and recipient.
the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise thereof affects equally the offeror and the
acceptor.
12- BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF VESSEL OR
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF LOCOMOTIVE, OR ANY OTHER
ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE OR RUIN.
- Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be consciously and deliberately used by the
offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by means of…”
*must be deliberately employed to accomplish the intended crime.
On the other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill the victim, burned the house where the latter was,
and the victim died as a consequence, the crime is murder, qualified by the circumstance that the crime
was committed "by means of fire.
2 aggravating circumstance present – 1 is qualifying the other is generic.
13- Evident Premeditation
Requisites:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating the culprit’s determination to commit the crime;
3. A sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.
- Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the person whom
the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim.

14- Craft, fraud or disguise

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning.
DISGUISE
- Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity
- To facilitate the commission of the crime
- Offender takes advantage of the disguise
15- Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense.
- must show that the accused were physically stronger than the victim, and that they abused such
superiority by taking advantage of their combined strength to consummate the offense.
- Abuse of superior strength is present … also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is
out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
- Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear
proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available
to the person attacked.
- So there were women and children victims but there were also men who were victims in this case of Cortez.
So they said the indiscriminate use of weapons against anyone they encountered during the commission of
the crime negates superior strength as an aggravating circumstance.

MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

- The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could not put up any sort of defense
otherwise that would be a case of treachery.
16- Treachery
Elements:
(1) it is sudden and unexpected, not giving the victim any opportunity to defend. and
(2) it was consciously and deliberately planned or employed. The means and method were
consciously and deliberately employed by the offender.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION - WITH INTENT
TREACHERY - WITH MANNER
Done casually and impulsively – NO TREACHERY
17 – Ignominy
Ignominy is defined as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy
to the material injury caused by the crime.
Obloquy – public shame
18- Unlawful Entry
- When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
19- Breaking wall, roof , floor, door, or window
- The breaking must be resorted as a means to the commission of the crime.
- What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the latter the window or point of ingress
need not be broken.
20- aid of persons under 15 yrs. of age, by means of motor vehicle, airship or other similar means.
The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate
escape.

21 – Cruelty

- Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy which refers to moral suffering, i.e.,
disgrace and shame.

ART. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

- Aggravating OR mitigating depending on the

1. Nature and effects of the crime; and
2. Other conditions attending to its commission.
● Relationship,
● Intoxication,
● Degree of instruction and education .
RELATIONSHIP
● Spouse
● Ascendant
● Descendant
● Brother or sister (legitimate, natural or adopted)
● Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

OTHER RELATIVES BY ANALOGY

- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.
- Adopted parent and adopted child.
- Not included
- Uncle and niece.
Cousins
GENERALLY RELATIONSHIP IS
- MitigatinG - crimes against property
- Aggravating - crimes against persons where offended party is of a higher degree than offender or
of the same level.

EXCEPTIONS
- In serious physical injuries, relationship is aggravating no matter the degree of relationship.
- In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
- In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.
-
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
- In crimes of chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered as aggravating.
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE REQUIRED

Relationship as element of offense – Neither mitigating nor aggravating

Parricide, Adultery (Wife is offender) , Concubinage (Husband is offender)

INTOXICATION – does not necessarily mean alcohol, anything that can affect his mental faculties.
- Mitigating
(1) not habitual or
(2) unintentional/accidental.
- Aggravating
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional.
AFFECT HIS MENTAL FACULTIES

When the accused is established to be drunk, the presumption is that it was not habitual but
accidental and therefore, mitigating.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION OR EDUCATION

- Lack of instruction or education:
- generally mitigating;
- Diminished intelligence and freedom.
- High degree of instruction or education:
- If used/taken advantage is aggravating

NO INSTRUCTION AT ALL

ART 16 PERSONS Criminally Liable

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
- When there is only one felon, he alone is criminally liable.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the
criminal act.
ONLY NATURAL PERSONS, JURIDICAL PERSONS CAN BE CHARGED BUT ONLY BY SPECIAL
LAWS,
Art. 17 PRINCIPALS
1- Direct Participation
2- By Inducement
3- Indispensable Cooperation
Principal by Direct Participation requisites: Two or more offenders
1- That they participated in the criminal resolution.
2- They carried out the plan and personally took part in the execution by acts which directly tended
to the same end.

So, remember, conspiracy alone without #2 above, whats the

result? No criminal liability. Because remember the rule on
conspiracy? Conspiracy alone, as long as it is not expressly
punished under the law, results in no criminal liability.

CONSPIRACY
- Participating in Criminal Resolution is Conspiracy.
- Two or more persons come to an agreement to a commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
- Conspiracy not as felony, but criminal liability.
Unity of purpose
So, their acts might be different from one another. In fact,
some decisions would say that the conspirators need not even
know the part of the other conspirators. They need not even
know the whole plan. What is important is that they know the
criminal design, they know teh criminal intent, they know their
role, and they perform their role.

Unity of Criminal Design

it is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement
setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried
out.
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
every act of need not even know the exact part to be performed by the other in the execution of the
conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to
one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective.
Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or mo[d]ality
of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

Actual Role becomes immaterial

Conspiracy may be expressed or implied

Manner of the commission of the Crime

INDICATORS OF CONSPIRACY

● Spontaneous agreement;
● Active cooperation;
● Contributing positive acts;
● Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support thereto;
 ● Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned and actually performing that role.

● So take note of these two kinds of jurisprudence with regards to presence: (a) presence is not
incriminatory; and (b) presence resulting to one being liable as an accomplice.

When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own act.

Liable for the consequence –

2ND REQUISITE. THEY CARRIED OUT THEIR PLAN AND PERSONALLY TOOK PART IN ITS
EXECUTION BY ACTS WHICH DIRECTLY TENDED TO THE SAME END
THOSE WHO DIRECTLY FORCE OR INDUCE OTHERS TO COMMIT IT
1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime;
2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime
REQUISITES OF A PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION:

1. Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.

2. Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime
First requisite, there is that intention. The principal by
inducement through that inducement has clear intent for the
crime to be committed. Meaning to say, he wants the crime to
be committed. It is not just a thoughtless expression. It is a
clear categorical inducement for the crime to be committed
and this can be established through the persistence of the
inducer.
In Alcontin, she promised that 5if you kill my husband, I can be
your wife. Thoughtless expression not allowed.

2ND REQUISITE. DETERMINING CAUSE

Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed. It must:

1. Precede the act induced, and (price, reward, promise, words of command)

2. Influential
It must precede the act and must be influential. Price, reward,
words of command.
Words of command which supposedly the person will not
commit if not for your words of command. There must be that
quality of ascendancy or persuasion on your part that you can
convince somebody to commit the crime by just mere words of
command

Words of command : Requisites:

- Intention to procure the commission of the crime

- Inducer must be of ascendancy or influence
- Words must be direct, efficacious, powerful
- Uttered prior to the commission of the crime
- Material executor has no personal reasons to commit the crime
Tan-aw ang Ambagan, the mayor allegedly said 5Ok guys, shut
them6
The reason why the SC said that no he is not a principal by
inducement not because of his words but because the SC was
not convinced that the mayor actually said those words. The
SC questioned the credibility of the two witnesses. The witness
closer to the mayor at that time didn8t testify that the mayor
actually said those statements.
SC said IF the mayor had said that, then he is a principal by
inducement but wa man, ahw ang shooter ray na held liable.

INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Requisites:

1. Participation in criminal resolution.

2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, w/o w/c it would not
have been accomplished

COOPERATION

● Cooperation – implies that there is a desire or wish in common.

● Another act – the act must be different from the acts of the principal by direct participation. The
act must not involve the material execution of the offense.
Ex: dragging a girl to a place where she is to be raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, one must
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in
criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act without which it would
not have been accomplished.

PP vs. CARRIAGA
That8s why even if there8s conspiracy, you still
need to prove that all the conspirators will fall under any of the
3 categories of principals. It8s NOT enough to say that he8s a
conspirator. You have to prove that he is a principal, otherwise
Carriaga ruling would apply and he will only be classified as
accomplice. You have to prove either principal by direct
participation or indispensable participation because principal by
inducement does not require conspiracy to make the accused
liable under conspiracy theory.
This is because as Carriaga says or other cases, even with the
presence of conspiracy, if that person CANNOT fall under any
of the category of a principal, his liability is an accomplice.

ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES

1. Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts,

2. Not a principal,
3. No conspiracy.
CONSPIRATOR V. ACCOMPLICE
- Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
- Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design

Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution. They are

part of the conspiracy. While accomplices, they do NOT take
part, they only KNOW.
Basically, what happens is that the criminal, they come in
AFTER the criminal resolution and they CONCUR. They gave
their assent. They agree to the criminal resolution that had
already been made.

REQUISITES Accomplice:

1. that there be community of design;

2. cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
3. The acts of the accomplice must have a relation with the act of the principal.
Should not be indispensable.

ACCESSORIES:
Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being principals or accomplices, take subsequent part
in its commission by:

1. Profiting or assisting the accused to profit;

2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or its effects/instruments to prevent its discovery.
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape