ARTICLE 14

AGRRAVATING
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.
4 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 1. GENERIC- Those that can generally apply to all crimes.
 2. SPECIFIC- Those that apply only to particular crimes.
 3. QUALIFYING-Those that change the nature of the crime.
 4. INHERENT- Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
Generic Aggravating Circumstance
- Ordinary or generic aggravating circumstance unless offset by a mitigating
circumstance shall require the application of divisible penalty in its maximum period
(Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code) or the application of greater penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. (Article 63). (1) If the crime is imprudence or negligence (Article 365
of the Revised Penal Code); (2) if the penalty is single and indivisible (Article 63); and
(3) if special law has not adopted the technical nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code.
If the crime is committed in the presence of the President, the place of commission
is an aggravating circumstance. It is not required that the President is discharging his
official duties at that time.
If the crime is committed in the presence of public authorities, the circumstance of
place of commission is not aggravating. In committing multiple murders in Plaza
Miranda in the presence of Senators by throwing grenades at the audience in a political
gathering, the place of commission is not an aggravating circumstance.
(1971 Bar Exam) But if the crime is committed in the presence of a public authority
while he is engaged in the discharge of his official function, place of commission is not
likewise an aggravating circumstance. However, the aggravating circumstance of
contempt of public authority shall be appreciated.
C. Disregard of Rank There are four ordinary aggravating circumstances under
Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: (1) disregard of rank, (2) disregard of
age,(3) disregard of sex, and (4) disregard of dwelling.
The circumstances of disregard of sex, age or rank should be considered as one. But
the circumstance of disregard of dwelling should be considered independently from the
circumstance of disregard of age, sex and rank since their concepts are not the same. In
the latter, the disrespect shown by the offender pertains to the person of the offended
due her rank, age and sex. In the former, the disrespect pertains to the dwelling of the
offended party due to the sanctity of privacy which the law accords it.
Hence, the court must independently appreciate disregard of dwelling and disregard of
rank (People U. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981);, or disregard of dwelling and
disregard of age. (People u. De Taga, G.R. No.31251, August 6, 1929; and People u.
Tawat, G.R. No. 62871,May 25, 1984)
i. Intent to Insult
- In People v. Talay, G.R.No. L-24952, November 28, 1980, disregard of the rank of
the barangay captain shall not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the
absence of proof of the specific fact or circumstance that the accused disregarded the
respect due to the offended party. It must be shown that the accused deliberately
intended to insult the rank of victim as barangay captain.
ii. Direct Assault
– If the accused killed person in authority while engaged in the performance of duty
or by reason of past of past performance of duty, the crime committed is direct assault
with murder or homicide.
(People U. Hecto, G.R. No. L-52787, February 28, 1985,People . Moreno, G.R. Nos. L-
87801-05, October 23, 1978;U.S. u. Garcia, G.R. No. 6820. October 16, 191 1) If
accused killed a person in authority, but he was not engaged in the performance of duty
at that time, and there is no showing that the crime was committed by reason of past
performance of duty, the crime committed is not direct assault with homicide or murder.
Accused is liable for homicide or murder and the aggravating circumstance of disregard
of rank may be-appreciated. (People v. Ablao,G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990)
In U.S. v. Cabiling, G.R. No. L-3070, February 11,1907, the accused killed his
teacher by reason of the performance of his duty. The accused was convicted of murder
aggravated by disregard of rank. However, CA No. 578 has amended Article 152 of the
Revised Penal Code in 1940 by making a teacher a person in authority. Hence, if the
accused killed his teacher by reason of the performance of his professional duty, the
crime committed is direct assault with homicide or murder. (Sarcepuedes U. People,
G.R. No. L-3857, October 22, 1951; People v. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31,
1974), which will absorb the circumstance of disregard of rank (2017 Bar Exam).
f. Disregard of Dwelling
- To appreciate dwelling as an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the following
requisites must be present: (1) Offender committed crime in the dwelling of the
offended party; (2) offender committed the crime in disregard of the respect which the
dwelling is entitled, and (3) the offended has not given provocation. (1976 Bar Exam)
i. Sanctity of Privacy
- In aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling, the accuse transgressed the
sanctity of privacy due to the dwelling by committing a crime therein. (2008 Bar Exam)
Thus the victim must have a right of privacy in the dwelling.
ii. Dwelling The store, which is used as a house, where the crime was committed
cannot be considered as dwelling within the meaning of Article 14(3)of the Revised
Penal Code. (People v. Magnaye, G.R. No.L-3510, May 30, 1951) This building,
although being used for rest and comfort, is imbued with public character, and thus, the
law does not accord it the sanctity of privacy.
 However, a store, which is used for rest. and comfort is a dwelling within the
meaning of Article 280 on trespass to dwelling (People v. Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530,
August3, 1935) and Article 299 on robbery in an inhabited house.(People u. Tubog,
G.R. No. L-26284, November 17, 1926;People u. Alvarez, G.R. No. L-9626, May 22,
1957)
For all intents and purposes, the house owned by another person constituted a
dwelling of a victim, who used it for rest and conform. It is not necessary under law that
the victim owned the place. Be she a lessee, a boarder, a bed spacer, or a maid, the place
is her home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. Dwelling is
considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because sanctity of privacy of the
accords to human abode. (People U. Sapinoso, G.R. No.122540, March 22, 2000)
A residential house is a dwelling. But the room rented by the victim as bed-spacer in
the house is a separate dwelling. (People u. Daniel. G.R. No. L-40330,November 20,
1978; 2009 Bar Exam)
 In People v. Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990,one does not lose his right of
privacy in the dwelling where he is offended in the house of another because as his
invited guest, he, the stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same
intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief moment,
"home to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment. (People u. Basa,
G.R. No. L-1212, May18, 1949)
Disregard of dwelling shall be appreciated if direct assault with murder is
committed against a judge in the house of his mistress where he regularly slept every
weekend as an invited guest.(2017 Bar Exam).
The Balansi principle will not apply to a visitor who merely attended a birthday
celebration. The house where the birthday was celebrated is not his dwelling. (People U.
Ramolete, G.R. No. L-28108, March 27, 1974: 2011 Bar Exam)
 The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral
part thereof such as the staircase of the house, its terrace and enclosures under the
house. (People v. Rios, G.K, No. 132632, June 19, 2000)But dwelling shall not be
appreciated where the victim was only about to step 0n the first rung of the ladder of the
dwelling when he was attacked. (People u. Suspene,G.R. No. L-9346, October 30,
1957)
For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the
entered the dwelling of the accused should have actually victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant
might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. (People U.
Perreras, G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001; People v. Bare G.R. No. 148877, August 19,
2003; 1974 Bar Exam)
 iii. Living in the Same Dwelling
- If the offender and victim were living in the same dwelling, the former could not
have transgressed the sanctity of privacy due to the dwelling by committing a crime
therein. The right privacy in the dwelling can only be invoked against those who are not
living therein. (People u. Nuguid, G.R. No.148991, January 21, 2004; 2013 Bar Exam)
But abuse of confidence may be appreciated. (People v. Laspardas, G.R.No. L-46146,
October 23, 1979) However, two rooms in a house separately rented by the offender
and the victim are considered as separate dwellings. Hence, disregard of dwelling shall
be appreciated where the crime is com-mitted inside the room rented by the victim. (US
U. Co,G.R. No. 3418, March 8, 1 907; People v. Santiago, G.R.No. 147314, February 6,
2004)In adultery, husband, unfaithful wife and her paramour are living in the same
house, disregard of dwelling shall not be appreciated. (US u. Destrito, G.R.No. L-6984;
August 19, 1912) The wife and her paramour could not have transgressed the sanctity of
privacy due the dwelling since they and the offended husband were living therein.
But abuse of confidence may be appreciated if the unfaithful wife and her paramour
took advantage of the trust reposed on them by the offended husband. (USu. Barbicho,
No. 5109, July 31, 1909; 1981 Bar Exam)
If the paramour is living in a different house, and adultery is committed in the
conjugal house of the unfaithful wife and offended husband, disregard of dwelling shall
be appreciated not only against the paramour but the wife as well because both of them
violated the respect due to the conjugal home. (US U.Ibañez, G.R. No. 10672, October
26, 1915)iv. Provocation When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating
circumstance, or lack of provocation as an essential element of self-defense, the
reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting,
inciting, or irritating anyone; it is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable
or annoying; the provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful
act and should immediately precede the act. (Urbano u. People,G.R. No. 182750,
January 20, 2009)
 Provocation, the absence of which is an element of self-defense, must be given by
the accused exciting the victim to commit unlawful aggression against him.
Provocation as a mitigating circumstance must be given by the offended party
adequately exciting the accused to commit a crime: it must have blurred the reason and
self-control of the accused.
Provocation, the absence of which is an element of the mitigating circumstance of
dwelling, must be given by the offended party exciting the accused to commit crime
inside the dwelling and stripping the former of his right to privacy in his dwelling; the
victim must have lost his right to the respect and consideration due him in his own
house by reason of provocation on his part. (People u. Atienza, G.R. No. L-39777,
August 31, 1982)
Challenging the family of the accused while armed with deadly weapons and chasing
one of the accused constitute a provocation, which is sufficient to strip the victim of his
right to privacy in his dwelling, where the crime was committed.
Hence, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling shall not be appreciated.
Moreover, this provocation is also sufficient to blur the reason and self-control of the
accused. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of provocation shall be appreciated.
(Pepito u. CA, G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999)
The statement "Halika rito pare makita mo ang hinahanap mo" is a provocation,
which is sufficient to strip the victim of his right to privacy in his dwelling, where the
crime was committed. Hence, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling
shall not be appreciated. But this provocation is not sufficient to blur the reason and
self-control of the accused to commit a crime. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of
provocation shall not be appreciated. (People v. Cordero, G.R. N97229, January 5,
1993)
g. Nighttime
- Under Article 10(15) of the Old Penal Code, that nocturnity, band or despoblado
shall be taken into consideration by the courts according to the nature and incidents of
the crime. Thus, nighttime, band and uninhabited place which the accused employed to
facilitate the commission of the crime or to afford impunity shall be appreciated as
aggravating circumstance. However, Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code has
eliminated the phrase according to the nature and incidents of the crime and instead
considers nighttime, uninhabited place and band as aggravating whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. However, despite of this
new phraseology, jurisprudence still considers nighttime, uninhabited place and band
used to afford impunity as an aggravating circumstance.
 i. Nighttime Per se
- If the crime is committed in the dwelling, this circumstance is aggravating. But if
the crime is committed during nighttime, this circumstance will not automatically be
considered as aggravating.(People v. Laguardia, G.R. No. L-63243, February 27,
1987)To appreciate nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, it must be shown that the
accused intentionally chose the darkness of the night (or silent of the night) to facilitate
the commission of the crime (People u. Pardo, G.R. No.L-562, November 19, 1947); or
afford impunity (People u. Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001); or deliberately took
advantage thereof to facilitate the commission of the crime. (People v. Morales, G.R.
No. L-44096, April 20,1983; 2005 and 2017 Bar Exams)
Where the notion to kill the victim was conceived only shortly before its
commission, nighttime shall not be appreciated as aggravating circumstance. (People U.
Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947: 1997, 2006and 2013 Bar Exams)
If the accused decided to commit the crime at the precise moment that he saw the victim
in the middle of the night, nighttime cannot be appreciated in acts of lasciviousness
since the accused did not deliberately choose nighttime to facilitate the commission of
the crime.(1982 Bar Exam)
ii. Darkness and Silent of the Night
- As a general rule, nighttime is an ordinary aggravating circumstance because the
darkness of the night facilitated the commission of the crime or insured impunity.
(1994Bar Exam) Thus, nighttime cannot aggravate the crime if it is committed in a
lighted place although at the wee hours of the night. (People u. Clariño, G.R. No.
134634,July 31, 2001) The darkness of the night and not nighttime per se is important
in appreciating it as an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Banhaon, G.R. No. 131117,
June15, 2004)
 But if the offender purposely selected the wee hour of the night when neighbors and
occupants of the house including the victim were sleeping to facilitate the commission
of the crime or to afford impunity, nighttime shall be appreciated even if the place of
commission is lighted. (People u. Demate, G.R. No. 132310, January 20,
While accused were already outside the victim’s house at around 11:00 p.m., they
purposely waited until2:00 a.m. before breaking into the residence so as not to call the
attention of the victims, household members07 and/or their neighbors. Taking
advantage of the fact that00802 the victim and household members were asleep,
accused entered the well-lighted bedroom and killed the victim. Nighttime should be
appreciated since accused took advantage of the silence of the night. (People U. Ventura
and Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per
 h. Craft or Fraud
- The fine distinction between fraud and craft as ordinary aggravating circumstances
is unnecessary as these terms are variant of means employed to deceive the victim and
if all these are present in the same case. They shall be applied as a single aggravating
circumstance(Justice Florenz Regalado). In fact, there are cases where the Supreme
Court treated the deception (such as pretending to be a customer) of the accused that
facilitate the commission of the crime as the aggravating circumstance of fraud or
craft(People u. Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993; People v. Lor, G.R. No. L-
47440-42, September 12, 1984); or craft and fraud. (People v. Labuguen, G.R. No.
127849, August 9, 2000En Banc) The aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud shall
be treated as one.
Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the means,
method or form for the treacherous strategy. It may co-exist independently from
treachery only when both circumstances are adopted for different purposes in the
commission of the crime. (People v. Lab-e0, G.R. No133438, January 16, 2002)
 i. To Facilitate the Commission of Crime
- Where the accused hid the knife under his jacket in order to make a treacherous
attack, craft is absorbed in treachery. (People v. Lab-e0, ibid.)
ii. To Afford Impunity
- Where accused disguised themselves as army men to afford impunity, and
assaulted victim in sudden and unexpected manner, craft is not absorbed in treachery.
They shall be appreciated independently. (People v. Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-
89,February 26, 1981; 1955 Bar Exam)
i. Aid of Minor - There is a special aggravating circumstance of "exploitation of
children" if the accused makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of
children, or abuses his authority over the child or takes advantage of the vulnerabilities
of the child with abuse of confidence to induce, threaten or instigate the commission of
the crime.(Section 20-C of R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10365)Exploitation
of children for the commission of crimes is as special aggravating circumstance, where
the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period regardless of the presence of
mitigating circumstances
 Under Article 14(20) of the Revised Penal Code on the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of committing crime with the aid of a minor, the age of the child must be
under 15 years. But in the special aggravating circumstance of exploitation of child
under R.A. No. 9344. the age of the minor must be under18 years.
The concept of exploitation of children under R.A. No.9344 is comprehensive
enough to cover the circumstance of with the aid of minor under the Revised Penal
Code.
j. Motor Vehicle - Aggravating circumstance shall be appreciated if the motorcycle
was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense People u. Sanchez,
G.R. No. 131116, August, 27, 1999), and to facilitate their escape after they
accomplished their mission. (People u. Salahuddin,G.R. No. 206291, January 18, 2016)
 Motor vehicle was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where the accused
used the motor vehicle to aggravating pursue the jeep of the victims, and then after
overtaking the jeep, they fired their rifles at the victims. (People u. Sanchez, supra)The
use of a motor vehicle is not an aggravating circumstance where the primary purpose of
the accused, a soldier, in riding on a motorized tricycle was to return to their camp after
shooting the first victim and it was just incidental that on his way to the camp, he
happened to see his second victim sitting by the window of his house. (People u. Mil,
G.R. Jab - Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979) In sum, the accused did not8e purposely
seek motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of the offense.hn In People u. Balagtas,
CA-G.R. No. 10823-R, SeptemberO8 12, 1955, while it is true that a jeep was used in
carting away the Vicks Vaporub, the crime of estafa was not committed by8ot means of
motor vehicle. The accused used deceit and not the motor vehicle in committing estafa.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The effects of ordinary aggravating circumstance and special aggravating
circumstance are the same. "The presence of ordinary or special aggravating
circumstance will require the application of the prescribed penalty in its maximum
period but the same cannot crease the penalty to the next higher degree. However, while
an ordinary aggravating circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance, a special aggravating circumstance is not subject to the offset rule.
The following are special aggravating circumstances: taking advantage of position;
organized/syndicated crime group (Article02 of the Revised Penal Code); quasi-
recidivism (Article 160 of the Code); complex crime (Article 48 of the Code) use of
loose firearm(Section 29 of R.A. No. 10591); under the influence of drugs (Section 25
of R.A. No. 91 65: 2005 Bar Exam); and exploitation of minor (Section 20-C of R.A.
No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630)
 a. Complex Crime - Complex crime is in the nature of a special aggravating
circumstance (People U. De Leon G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009) that effectively
directs the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period(People u.
Valdez, G.R. Nos. 216007-09, December 8, 2015)
b. Organized/Syndicated Crime Group – The special circumstance of
organized/syndicated crime group is not listed in Article 14; but it is found in Article 62,
which provides: The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was committed
by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. An organized
/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission
of any crime.
Syndicate means association of gangsters. The concept of organized/syndicated
crime group contemplates the Yakusain Japan, Mafia in the United States of America,
Hong KongTriad, Akyat Bahay Gang, Red Scorpion Gang, etc.
 Organized/syndicated crime group presupposes conspiracy among members of the
syndicate to commit a crime for gain. But conspiracy alone is not enough to establish
the existence of a syndicate. In People v. Alberca, G.R. No. 117106, June 26,1996, to
appreciate this circumstance, there must be a group of persons, at least two in number,
which is organized for the purpose of committing crimes for gain. In this case, accused
and his companions planned to rob the employer of the victim. But there is no evidence
that they were organized for the purpose of committing crimes for gain. There was a
conspiracy to commit robbery but not a syndicated or organized crime group.
In People v. Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, July 10, 1998,anized/syndicated crime group
was appreciated in importation of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 6425 on the basis of
the findings of collaborative efforts of the accused to import drugs. However, Section
98 of R.A. No. 9165, which has repealed R.A. No. 6425, provides that Revised Penal
Code shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders.
Thus, the Esparas principle is only applicable
if the offender, who violated the dangerous drugs law, is a minor
Crime of murder committed by member of a syndicate organized to extort
protection to give in is aggravated by the circumstance of organized/syndicated crime
group. (1987 and 2008 Bar Exams)
Under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, the liability of the accused is
aggravated if the crime is committed by a band, whenever such circumstance may
facilitate the commission of the offense. Thus, what makes band aggravating is the
direct participation of at least four armed malefactors in committing a crime. Under
Article 62, the liability of the accused is aggravated if the offense was committed by
any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group. In
organized/syndicated crime group, the direct participation of the members of the
syndicate is not the essence of aggravation. What is important to appreciate this
circumstance is membership in the syndicate.
C. Taking Advantage of Public Position – All aggravating circumstances mentioned in
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code are ordinary. Presence of any of these
circumstances can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. However, there is
an exception. The circumstance of taking advantage of position is a special mitigating
circumstance. This circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Article
62 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides: When in the
commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the offender of his public position,
the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances. In US u. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, September 18, 1912,accused, a
municipal councilman, used his influence, prestige and ascendancy in inducing victims
to pay him five pesos for each dead animal as fine. Abuse of public position was
appreciated .In US u. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October 18, 1907,the accused, a
councilor, did not take advantage of his public position to defraud their victims. The
victims without Inducement entrusted their money to accused to buy cedula. Abuse of
public position was not appreciated.
 The mere use of service firearm is not enough to constitute taking advantage of
public position. The fact that accused made use of service firearms which they were
authorized carry or possess by reason of their positions, could not supply the required
connection between the office and the crime. The crime in question, for example, could
have been committed by the defendants in the same or like manner and in the same case
if they had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons. (People v.
Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304June 28, 1983; People v. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March
151999, En Banc; People v. Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 272000; People v.
Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08 and 141908-09,January 15, 2002, En Banc; and People
u. Fallorina, G.R. No.137347, March 4, 2004)
d. Uninhabited Place
- Uninhabited place is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, or a special
aggravating circumstance in robbery by means of violence or intimidation,(Article 295
of the Revised Penal Code)
 To appreciate uninhabited place, it must be proven that there were no inhabited
houses nearby. (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. L-12718, February 24, 1960) But even
when the house is inhabited, if that is the only house in the said place and the victims
are the only inhabitants of the house, uninhabited place shall be appreciated. (The
Revised Penal Code by Luis Reyes; 1996 Bar Exam)
The uninhabited character of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene of the crime but whether or not there was reasonable possibility of
the victim receiving some help in the place where the crime was committed. (People u.
Desalisa, G.R. No. L-15516, December17, 1966; People v. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983,
May 23, 2001,En Banc; People v. Torres, G.R. No. 134766, January 16, 2004,En Banc)
Thus, uninhabited place shall be appreciated if the felony was perpetrated in the open
sea where no help could be expected by the victim from other persons and the offenders
could easily escape punishment.
(People v. Nulla, G.R. No.L-69346, August 31, 1987: 1963 and 2011 Bar Exams) On
the other hand, if the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed near the house of the
offended party, the character of the place is not uninhabited. (1982 Bar Exam).
i. To Facilitate the Commission of the Crime
-Uninhabited place shall be appreciated when accused especially sought it (People v.
Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789,April 25, 1969) or took advantage thereof (US u. Vitug, G.R.
No. L-5430, September &, 1910; 1963 Bar Exam) to facilitate the commission of the
crime. Thus, where the meeting of the accused and the victims in uninhabited place was
entirely unexpected and there is no evidence they had formed the intention to kill prior
to the meeting, uninhabited place is not an aggravating circumstance.
 ii. To Afford Impunity
- Uninhabited place shall also be appreciated when accused especially sought it or
took advantage thereof to insure impunity such as where the accused deliberately
selected an isolated place for killing and burying the victim to insure themselves against
detection and punishment. (People v. Ong, G.R.No. L-37908, October 23, 1981)
e. Band
- Band is ordinary aggravating circumstance or a special aggravating circumstance
in robbery by means of violence or intimidation. (Article 295 of the Revised Penal
Code).
There are three elements of band, to wit: (T) there must be at least four malefactors,
(2) at least four of them are armed(People u. Solamillo, G.R. No. 123161, June 18,
2003, En Banc),and (3) at least four of them took part or acted together in the
commission of crime as principals by direct participation.(People . Lozano, G.R. Nos.
137370-71, September 29, 2003)
 i. Armed
- The Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons. Any weapon
which, by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was used, is capable
of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim may be considered as arms for
purposes of the law on cuadrilla. (People v. Lozano, G.R. Nos. 1373 70-71, September
29, 2003) Thus, clubs, revolvers, bolos or stones are included under the term arms in the
phrase "more than 3 armed malefactors. " (People v. Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January
26, 1989; 1954 and 1994 Bar Exams)
ii. Four Armed Men
- Where the accused are five men, but only one of them is armed with a carbine,
there is no band. (1980 Bar Exam)
iii. Principal Participation
- Where one of the four armed men acted as principal by inducement, the crime is
not committed by a band. (People v. Lozano, supra; 2012 Bar Exam)
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Qualifying circumstance that changes the nature of the crime is an element thereof.
For example, treachery is a qualifying circumstance. The presence of treachery qualifies
the killing to murder. Treachery is included in the definition of murder. Treachery is an
element of murder. (2003 Bar Exam)
The differences between generic aggravating circumstance and qualifying
circumstance are as follows (1947, 1984, and 1999 Bar Exams):
Generic aggravating circumstances have the effect of increasing the penalty for the
crime to its maximum period, but it cannot increase the same to the next higher degree.
(People u. DeLeon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009; 1950 and 1999 Bar
Exams)Qualifying circumstances change the name and nature of the crime and cause
the imposition of a penalty graver than the crime being qualified. (2011 Bar Exam)
 For example, killing a person is homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal. If ordinary aggravating circumstance of craft is present, reclusion temporal shall
be applied in its maximum period. If the qualifying circumstance of treachery is present, it
will qualify the killing to murder instead of homicide and change the penalty to reclusion
perpetua to death instead of reclusion temporal.
Generic aggravating circumstance can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance
(People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June26, 2009), while qualifying circumstance is not
subject to the offset rule. (People u. Abletes, G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974)
It is now a requirement that the aggravating or qualifying circumstances be expressly
and specifically alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be
considered by the trial court in its judgment, even if they are subsequently proved during
trial. (Sombilon, Jr. u. People, G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009)This procedural rule
has a retroactive application because of pro reo. People u. Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321,
February 9, 2011; 1947, 1957,1963, 1982, 1991, and 2001 Bar Exams)
a. Aid of Armed Men
Aid of armed men is an ordinary aggravating circumstance or a qualifying
circumstance in murder. (Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code)Aid of armed men
requires: (1) that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor capacity,
directly or indirectly (People u. Lozano, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003, En
Banc) and (2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the
crime was committed. Thus, this circumstance should not be appreciated were armed
men acted in concert to ensure the commission of the crime.(People u. Carino, G.R. No.
131117, June 15, 2004)
In aid of armed men, the men act as accomplices only. They must not be acting in
the commission of the crime under the same purpose as the principal accused,
otherwise, they are to be regarded as co-principals or co-conspirators. (People u. Enoja,
G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014) In band, the armed members thereof, who are at
least four, must all be principals by direct participation who acted together in the
execution of the acts constituting the crime.
 (People v. Lozano, September29, 2003, G.R. Nos. 137370-71) In band, the number of
armed offenders is at least four. The term "aid of armed men presupposes that the principal
is seeking aid and that armed men are giving material aid as accomplices. The principal is
not required to be armed. (1955 Bar Exam)
b. Aid of Persons Who Insure or Afford Impunity - Aid of persons who insure or
afford impunity is an ordinary aggravating circumstance or a qualifying circumstance in
murder. (Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code)
A treacherously killed X. Band C helped A in throwing the dead body of X at the sea to
prevent the discovery of the crime. A is liable as principal for the crime of murder qualified
by the circumstance of treachery and aggravated by the circumstance of aid of persons who
insure or afford impunity. B and C a reliable as accessories.
In the circumstance of aid of armed men, offender purposely sought or consciously
relied upon the aid of armed men in committing a crime. In the circumstance of aid of
persons who insure or afford impunity, offender purposely sought consciously relied upon
persons to secure him against detection and punishment. In aid of armed men, the men,
whose aid the accused relied upon,
must be armed. In the circumstance of aid of persons who insure or afford impunity, the
persons, whose
aid the offender relied upon, are not required to be armed.
C. Disguise
- Disguise is an ordinary aggravating circumstance if the accused employed the same to
insure or afford impunity by hiding his identity. If the accused used disguise for fear of
being attacked, the circumstance is not aggravating. (US u. Guy-sayco, G.R. No. 4912,
March 25, 1909)Moreover, if despite of the mask, the identity of the offender was
recognizable, disguise will not be appreciated. The fact that the identity of the offender is
recognizable negates the existence of intent to hide his identity to afford impunity. (People
v. Pingol G.R. No. L-26931, May 28, 1970; People U. Reyes, G.R. No.118649, March 9,
1998; 1962 Bar Exam) But the fact that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does
not prevent the appreciation of disguise as an aggravating circumstance. What is important
in disguise is that there was a deliberate concealment of identity by the accused. (People v.
Feliciano, Jr., G.R. No. 196735, May 5, 2014)