Luzon Lectures Aggravating

ARTICLE 14
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
ARTICLE 14
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
ARTICLE 14
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
ARTICLE 14
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means
of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing
other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
5 KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
1. GENERIC - apply generally to all crimes

a) Taking advantage of public position (Article 14, par. 1)
b) Committing the crime in contempt of or with insult to public authorities
(Article 14, Par, 2)
c) Committing the crime in disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account if his rank, age or sex or that the crime be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation
(Article 14, par. 3)
d) Committing the crime with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
(Article 14, par. 4)
e) Committing the crime in the palace of the Chief Executive, in his
presence ir where public authorities are engaged in the discharged of their
functions or in a place dedicated to religious worship (Article 14, par.5)
CIRCUMSTANCE
1. GENERIC - apply generally to all crimes

f) Committing the crime at nighttime, in an uninhabited place or by a
band (Article 14, par. 6)
g) Recidivism (Article 14, par. 9)
h) Reiteration or habituality *Article 14, par. 10)
i) Employing craft, fraud or disguise (Article 14, par. 14)
j) Committing the crime after an unlawful entry (Article 14, par. 18)
k) Breaking a wall, floor, door or window (Article 14, par. 19)
l) Committing a crime with aid of persons under fifteen (15) years
old or by means of motor vehicle, airship or other similar means
(Article 14, par, 20)
CIRCUMSTANCE
2. SPECIFIC - apply only to particular crimes

a. Treachery (Article 14, par. 16)
b. Cruelty (Article 14, par. 21)
• ONLY in crimes against Persons
c. Ignominy (Article 14, par. 17
• Only in crimes against Chastity
5 KINDS OF
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
3. QUALIFYING - Those that change the nature of the
crime
a. Treachery (Article 14, par. 16)
• Qualifies Homicide to Murder
b. Abuse of confidence (Article 14, par. 4)
• Qualified the taking of personal property from Simple Theft
to Qualified Theft
c. Unlawful entry(Article 14, par. 18)
• Changes the taking of personal property from theft to robbery
CIRCUMSTANCE
4. INHERENT - necessarily accompanies the commission

of the crime; it is an element of the crime committed;
those that already form part of the commission of a
felony and do NOT have the effect of increasing the
penalty. (article 62, par. 2)
a. sex (Article 14, par. 3)
• Inherent in Rape and other crimes against chastity
b. Dwelling (Article 14, par. 3)
• Inherent in trespass to dwelling and violation of domicile
c. abuse of public position (Article 14, par. 1)
• Inherent in Malversation and robbery with use of force upon
things
CIRCUMSTANCE
5. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE -

those that arise under special conditions which
increase the penalty to the maximum period without
however exceeding the penalty prescribed by law.
a. Use of an unlicensed firearm (RA No. 10591)
• Aggravating circumstance if the unlicensed firearm
was used in the commission of the crime.
b. Quasi-recidivism (Article 160 RPC)
ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 62
PEOPLE VS LEGASPI
G.R. NO. 136164; APRIL 20, 2001
Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as aggravating

circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged in the
Complaint or Information, otherwise the same will not be
considered by the court even if proved during the trial.
And this principle is applicable in all criminal cases, not only in cases
were the aggravating circumstance would increase the penalty to
death. With this, the Court gives fair warning to prosecutors that
henceforth, they must prepare well-crafted information that
allege the circumstances qualifying and aggravating the crimes
charged, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court
in determining the proper imposable penalty.
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
GENERIC QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING AGGRAVATING
1. INCREASES the 1. CHANGES the
penalty to the nature of the felony
maximum period
2. maybe offset by an 2. CANNOT be offset
ordinary mitigating by an ordinary
circumstance mitigating
circumstance
1. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
PUBLIC POSITION
That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position.
1. Must be a public official; and

2. The commission of the crime would not have been
possible without the powers, resources and influence of
the office he holds
* Did the accused ABUSE his office in order to commit the

crime?
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
PEOPLE VS CAPALAC
G.R. NO. L38297; OCTOBER 23, 1982
The mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the

police force certainly did not of itself justify that the aggravating
circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender of his
public position be considered as present. He acted like a brother,
instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault
on his kin that could cause the death of a loved one. It would be
an affront to reason to state that at a time like that and reacting as
he did, he purposely relied on his being a policeman to commit the
act. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had his pistol
with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly. That he
was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his criminal
responsibility.
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
PEOPLE VS CGAPASIN
G.R. NO. 73489; APRIL 25, 1994
The trial court properly appreciated taking

advantage of public position as an aggravating
circumstance. Appellant, a member of the
Philippine Constabulary, committed the
crime with an armalite which was issued to
him when he received the mission order
(People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951])
2. CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to

the public authorities.
Requisites:
1. The offender knows that a public authority is present;
2. The public authority must be engaged in the
performance of his official duty;
3. The public authority is not the victim of the crime;
4. The public authority’s presence did not prevent the
criminal act
2. CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
Person in authority- public authority who is directly

vested with jurisdiction, has the power to govern and
execute the laws.
Examples:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay Captain
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
PEOPLE VS MAGDUENO
G.R. NO. L-68699; SEPTEMBER 22, 1986
However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime

with insult to public authority does not seem to be borne by the
records. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it
must not only be shown that the crime was not committed in the
presence of the public authority but also that the crime was not
committed against the public authority himself. (U.S. v.
Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150; People v. Rizal, 103 SCRA 282). In the
instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public authority involved in the
crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court, erred in including
commission of the crime with insult to public authority as an
aggravating circumstance.
3. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, SEX OR
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
1. with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank, age, or sex
Requisite Of Disregard To Rank, Age, Or Sex
a. Crimes must be against the victim's person or his honor
b. There is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the victim's rank, age, or sex
Rank - refers to a high social position or standing by which to determine one's pay and
emoluments in any scale of comparison within a position
Age - the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where the victim is of
tender age as well as of old age (age of the offended party)
Sex - refers to the female sex, not to the male sex; not
applicable when:
a. The offender acted w/ passion and obfuscation
b. there exists a relation between the offender and the victim (but in cases of divorce decrees
where there is a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable)
c. The condition of being a women is indispensable in the commission of the crime (e.g. rape,
parricide, abduction)
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.
Requisites:
1. Offender is either a woman, a person of a higher rank or older than the
offended party;
2. In the commission of the crime, the offender DELIBERATELY INTENDED to
offend or insult the sex, rank, or age of the offended party.
3. Applies only crimes against PERSON OR HONOR
NOTE: (El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santos; May 21, 1952)
these circumstances may be considered SEPARATELY against the
offender if they concur in the same case and their elements are distinctly perceived
and can subsist INDEPENDENTLY, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
2. that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the

latter has not given provocation
DWELLING - must be a building or structure exclusively used for

rest and comfort (combination house and store not included) It may
be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bed spacers.
REASON: Sanctity of privacy the law accords to a human
abode.
REQUISITES:
1. the crime must be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party;
2. The offended party has not given provocation;
3. There must be specific evidence to show that the offender
INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY disregarded the
respect the law accords to another’s dwelling.
a. Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and

the enclosure under the house
b. Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the dwelling of the
offended party. It should also not be the dwelling of the offender.
If the dwelling is both that of the offended party and the offender,
dwelling is not aggravating.
c. Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It is enough
that he used the place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and
privacy. The rule that dwelling, in order to be aggravating must be
owned by the offended party is no longer absolute. Dwelling can
be aggravating even if it is not owned by the offended party,
provided that the offended party is considered a member of the
family who owns the dwelling and equally enjoys peace of mind,
privacy and comfort.
d. Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile.
A person has more than one dwelling.
e. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. All the

appurtenances necessary for the peace and comfort, rest and peace
of mind in the abode of the offended party is considered a
dwelling.
f. One-half of the house is used as a store and the other half is used
for dwelling but there is only one entrance.
If the dwelling portion is attacked, dwelling is not aggravating
because whenever a store is open for business, it is a public place
and as such is not capable of being the subject of trespass. If the
dwelling portion is attacked where even if the store is open, there
is another separate entrance to the portion used for dwelling, the
circumstance is aggravating. However, in case the store is closed,
dwelling is aggravating since here, the store is not a public place
as in the first case.
DWELLING is not aggravating when it is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A

FELONY or is INHERENT in the commission of such a felony, such as:
1. Violation of Domicile (ART. 128)
2. Trespass to Dwelling (ART. 280)
3. Robbery in an INHABITED HOUSE (ART. 299)
EXAMPLES of INSTANCES when Dwelling was not considered as an
aggravating circumstance;
4. When the crime was committed through negligence or carelessness
5. When the sufficient provocation immediately preceded the act;
6. When the crime was committed out of passion or obfuscation;
7. When the crime was committed at the spur of the moment; and
8. When there was merely an accidental encounter between the accused and
the victim.
DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO AGE
PEOPLE VS DIAZ
G.R. NO. L-24002; JANUARY 21, 1974
But it was unlikely in this case that Tadia, a sexagenarian

grandfather, would have gone to the extent of assaulting the twenty-
four year old Francisco Diaz who was armed with a gun and a bolo,
just because the latter refused to give him a pig.
The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating.

There was no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to
offend or insult the age of the victim. That circumstance may be
absorbed in treachery (People v. Gervacio, L-21565, August 30,
1968, 24 SCRA 960; People v. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548; People v.
Limaco, 88 Phil. 35, 44).
DISREGARD OF RESPECT DUE TO DWELLING
PEOPLE VS DANIEL
G.R. NO. L-40330 NOVEMBER 20, 1978
To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is rape

with the use of a deadly weapon with the aggravating
circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of
the offended party. Although Margarita was merely
renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room
constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling" as
the term is used in Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code. It
is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the
place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder,
or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of
which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or

obvious ungratefulness.
2 aggravating circumstances:
1. Abuse of Confidence
• The offended party trusted the offender
• The offender ABUSED such trust by committing
the crime against the offended party
• The abuse of confidence FACILITATED the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belief that the
former would not abuse such confidence.
2. Obvious Ungratefulness
• Ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, there
must be something which the offender should owe
the victim a debt of gratitude for
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or

obvious ungratefulness.
2 aggravating circumstances:
1. Abuse of Confidence
• The offended party trusted the offender
• The offender ABUSED such trust by committing
the crime against the offended party
• The abuse of confidence FACILITATED the
commission of the crime, the culprit taking
advantage of the offended party's belief that the
former would not abuse such confidence.
2. Obvious Ungratefulness
• Ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, there
must be something which the offender should owe
the victim a debt of gratitude for
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
PEOPLE VS MANDOLADO
L-51304-05, 28 JUNE 1983
In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a
relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was
committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime." (People vs.
Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172). It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to
commit the crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence
(People vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534).
In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon
which confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other
then. Consequently, no confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.
Similarly, there could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the
simple reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and
the breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are
manifestly lacking or non-existent.
In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms
cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is no
source of gratefulness or appreciation.
5. PLACE WHERE THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED
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.
PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE - official residence and place work

of the President.
President need not be inside the palace
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE FOLLOWING:
1. crime committed through Negligence or carelessness
2. Sufficient provocation immediately preceded the crime
3. When the crime was committed in a fit of passion or obfuscation on the
part of the accused
REASON: Specific evidence must be shown that the accused

DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED the respect due to the palace.
COMMITTED
That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive

or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
PLACE WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN

THE DISCHARGED OF THEIR DUTIES – not necessary that
public authorities were actually in the performance of their official
functions at the time of the commission of the felony. It is enough
that it was committed in the place where public authorities
perform their official functions.
COMMITTED
That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive

or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
PLACE DEDICATED FOR WORSHIP– not required that there be

a a religious minister or ceremony transpiring in a place dedicated
to religious worship. It is enough that the crime was committed in
a place dedicated to religious worship, because the place deserves
to be respected.
6. NIGHT TIME, UNINHABITED
PLACE OR BAND
That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an

uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances
may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band.
REQUISITES:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime
2. When it is especially sought for by the accused to ensure the
commission of the crime .
3. When the offender took advantage of nigh time, uninhabited
place or band for purposes of impunity.
PLACE OR BAND
NIGHT TIME – that period of DARKNESS beginning the end of

dusk and ending at dawn. SUNSET to SUNRISE.
GENERAL RULE: the mere fact that it was committed at NIGHT

will not suffice to sustain a finding of NOCTURNITY. By and of
itself, NIGHTTIME is not an aggravating circumstance. It
becomes so only when:
1. It is especially sought by the offender;
2. It was taken advantage of by him;
3. It facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the
offender’s immunity from capture.
PLACE OR BAND
2 tests in determining NOCTURNITY:
1. OBJECTIVE TEST - night is aggravating because the

DARKNESS facilitated the commission of the offense.
2. SUBJECTIVE TEST – night is aggravating because the

DARKNESS was purposely sought by the offender.
NOTE: TREACHERY absorbs NOCTURNITY

PLACE OR BAND
UNINHABITED PLACE – a place where there are no houses at all.
A place at a considerable distance from the town, or where the houses
are scattered at a great distance from each other.
CRITERIA:
the uninhibitedness of a place is not determined by the distance of the
nearest house to the scene of the crime BUT whether or not in the
place of the commission, there was reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.
NOTE: the uninhabited place must have been DELIBERATELY

SELECTED /SOUGHT by the offender to perpetrate the crime.
6. NIGHT TIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR
BAND
Band – when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense.
ARMS – may include, guns, revolvers, bolos, daggers, swords,

rifles, stones and other deadly weapons.
NOTE:
1. Band is absorbed by “Abuse of Superior Strength”.
2. Band is inherent in Brigandage and Robbery in a band. (Art.
306 RPC)
NIGHTTIME
PEOPLE VS GARCIA
G.R. NO. L-30449; OCTOBER 31, 1979
The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may

therefore be said that it was committed at night, which covers the
period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code,
Article 13. Is this basis for finding that nocturnity is aggravating? The
Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is an aggravating
circumstance when the crime is committed in the nighttime,
whenever nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the offense.
There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance:
the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it
facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under
which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by
the offender.
These two tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the subjective test is not passed because there is no
NIGHTTIME
PEOPLE VS RODAS ET. AL.
G.R. NO. 75881; AUGUST 28, 2007
The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered

against appellants. This circumstance is considered aggravating only
when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially
sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of
impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the
obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of,
nighttime. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity
does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately
lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the offender’s immunity from
identification or capture. In the instant case, the prosecution failed
to show that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime, or
was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the
purpose of impunity.
The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax which led
to the identification of all the accused.
UNINHABITED; BAND
PEOPLE VS DAMASCO
G.R. NO. L-30116;NOVEMBER 20, 1978
The aggravating circumstance of band exists whenever more than three armed malefactors act
together in the commission of an offense. Counsel concedes that at least three of the accused-
appellants, namely Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio, ,were armed during the commission of the crime.
He doubts, however, whether accused Damaso carried any weapon and whether the "two stones"
carried by accused Espejo fall under the category of "arms." But even granting that Espejo's
stones do not constitute arms, the prosecution presented the following evidence to show that
Damaso was also armed and, as such, there were more than three of the accused who were
armed:
(1) that extrajudicial confession of Damaso himself (Exhibit "P") that he was carrying a caliber .22
paltik revolver;
(2) the sworn statement of accused Eugenio (Exhibit "O") that Damaso had a caliber .22 paltik
revolver;
(3) the separate written confessions of Alviar, Gregorio and Espejo (Exhibits R, Q, and "N") that
Damaso had a caliber .30 Springfield rifle; and
(4) the testimonies of Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la Cruz that both men who entered their
house (one of whom they later Identified as Damaso) were carrying firearms.
It is clear from the above, that Damaso was armed during the night of the commission of the
crime, and it is immaterial what kind of firearm he carried, the only important thing being
that he was armed. In this case, the presence of an armed band is to be considered as a generic
UNINHABITED; BAND
PEOPLE VS DAMASCO
G.R. NO. L-30116;NOVEMBER 20, 1978
Anent the circumstances of uninhabited place, counsel disclaims its existence by pointing to the proximity of the
sugarcane field where the victims were killed to the national highway as well as to certain houses in the barrio. The
uninhibitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but
whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. 8
Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct
the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any assistance.
That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims
to the sugarcane field although they could have disposed of them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where
they were found.
Thus, in People v. Saguing, the Court considered the crime as having been committed in an uninhabited place because
the killing was done in a secluded place at the foot of a hill, forested, and uninhabited. 9
The trial court considered separately the three circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place where
under other situations one may be considered absorbed or inherent in the other. There is ample justification for this. The
elements of each circumstance subsist independently and can be distinctly perceived thereby revealing a greater degree
of perversity on the part of the accused
7. CALAMITY OR OTHER MISFORTUNE
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,

shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
NOTE:
It is not enough that the offender committed the crime on the occasion
of “a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune” for it to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
There should be specific facts and circumstances to show that the
accused DELIBERATELY sought any of these occasions in order
to facilitate the commission of the crime or intentionally take
advantage of any of these occasions in committing the crime.
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
That the crime be committed with the aid of armed

men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
AID OF ARMED MEN BAND

1. it is enough that there are at 1. There should be at least four
least 2 persons who are armed persons who are armed
2. Actual aid of armed men is not 2. At least four armed men should
necessary. Psychological have acted together in the
reliance on the aide of armed commission of the crime.
men is sufficient
3. This is a Qualifying Aggravating 3. this is a generic aggravating
Circumstance circumstance
NOTE: Aid of armed men is

ABSORBED in BAND
9. RECIDIVISM
That the accused is a recidivist.

Recidivist - one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
EX.
previously convicted for Robbery with homicide
while incarcerated committed Homicide
RECIVIDIVIST?
Robbery with Homicide – Title X RPC (Crimes against
Property)
Homicide – Title VIII RPC (Crimes
against Persons)
FOUR TYPES OF CRIMINAL REPETITION
Four types of criminal repetition in the Penal Code:
1. Recidivism - (Art. 14 par. 9)

2. Habituality or Reiteracion - (Art. 14 par. 10)
3. Habitual Delinquency or Multi-Recidivism -
(Art. 62 par. 5)
4. Quasi-Recidivism - (Art. 160 RPC)
RECIDIVISM
PEOPLE VS BALDERA
G.R. NO. L-2390 ; APRIL 24, 1950
The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the

accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of his
previous conviction for theft, it appearing that crime was
committed on or about December 30, 1947 (Exhibit E)
while the offense now charged took place seven days
before that date.
10. REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
3 situations:
1. At the time of his trial for a crime, the accused has been previously
PUNISHED for an offense to which the law attaches an equal penalty.
EX.
YEAR 2000 X convicted for Estafa (Art. 315 par. 3 RPC)
PENALTY: Arresto mayor in its maximum period to Prision Correccional in its minimum
period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)
YEAR 2005. After serving his sentence X committed and was tried for the crime of
Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263 par. 4)
PENALTY: Arresto mayor in its maximum period to Prision Correccional in its minimum
period (4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months)
NOTE: for X’s conviction for Serious Physical Injuries the aggravating circumstance of REITERCION
will be considered because at the time of his trial for the 2nd time, he was PREVIOUSLY PUNSHED for
a crime to which the law attaches an equal penalty.
That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
3 situations:
2. At the time of his trial for a crime, the accused has been previously
PUNISHED for an offense to which the law attaches a greater penalty.
EX.
YEAR 2000 Y convicted for Simple Theft (Art. 309 RPC)
PENALTY: Prision Correccional in its medium and maximum periods
(2 year, 4 months and 1 day to 6
years )
YEAR 2005. After serving his sentence Y committed and was tried for the crime of
Grave Coercion (Art.286 RPC)
PENALTY: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Php 500.00
(1 month and 1 day to 6 months )
NOTE: for Y’s conviction for Grave Coercion, the aggravating circumstance of REITERCION will be
considered because at the time of his trial for the 2nd time, he was PREVIOUSLY PUNSHED for a crime
to which the law attaches a greater penalty.
That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
3 situations:
3. At the time of his trial for a crime, the accused has been previously PUNISHED
for an offense to which the law attaches a lighter penalty.
EX.
YEAR 2000 Z convicted for Simple Theft (Art. 309 RPC)
PENALTY: Prision Correccional in its medium and maximum periods
(2 year, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years )
YEAR 2002 After serving his sentence Z was convicted for the crime of Grave Coercion
(Art.286 RPC)
PENALTY: Arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding Php 500.00
(1 month and 1 day to 6 months )
YEAR 2010 After serving his sentence Z committed and was tried for the crime of Murder (Art.
248 RPC) PENALTY: Reclusion Perpetua
NOTE: for Z’s conviction for Murder, the aggravating circumstance of REITERCION will be considered because
at the time of his trial for the 3 nd time, he was PREVIOUSLY PUNSHED for two crimes to which the law attaches
lighter penalties.
REITERACION RECIDIVISM
1. It is not necessary that the felonies 1. The previous and subsequent

be embraced in the same title of the convictions must be for felonies
Revised Penal Code embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code
2. Final conviction for the previous 2. It is enough that there is a final
crime is not enough. The accused judgment of conviction for a
must have SRERVED the sentence. previous felony. Service of
Sentence is not necessary.
3. There must be 2 or more previous 3. One previous final judgment of
convictions and punishments conviction is sufficient provided
provided that these previous that the previous and subsequent
convictions and punishments are convictions are for felonies
for crimes to which the law embraced in the same title of the
attaches a lighter penalty. Revised Penal Code
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (ARTICLE 62,
PAR. 5)
Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY - if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of :
1. Serious or Less Serious Physical Injuries
2. Theft
3. Robbery
4. Homicide
5. Estafa; or
6. Falsification
He is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or often.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (ARTICLE 62,
PAR. 5)
ELEMENTS:
1. there must be a third conviction;

2. the crime committed by the offender for the 3rd, 4th, or 5th
times should be among those mentioned in Article 62, like
serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, theft,
robbery, Estafa an falsification;
3. there must be a time gap of not more than ten years between
convictions.
HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY (ARTICLE
62, PAR. 5)
RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELIQUENCY
Recidivism is broader. Any two But to be a habitual delinquent, the
offenses, all that are necessary is for the crimes are more specific. These are all
two offenses committed before and now limited to those mentioned in Article 62.
are embraced in the same title of the Penal
Code.
The second conviction is sufficient to There must at least a third conviction.
make a person a recidivist.
There is no time limitation between the The time gap between the previous
prior conviction and the present conviction and present should not be
conviction. It could be twenty years ago. more than 10 years.
This simply maximizes the principal This cause for the imposition of a separate
penalty for the new crime. and distinct additional penalty.
HABITUAL DELINQUENT
PEOPLE VS MELENDREZ
G.R. NO. 39913. DECEMBER 19, 1933
On the other hand, the fiscal contends that the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism should be taken into account against the appellant. This claim of
the fiscal is in accordance with the judgment rendered by this court in banc
in the case of People v. Aguinaldo (47 Phil., 728) while the old Penal Code
was in force. But the enforcement of the Revised Penal Code has resulted in
a difference of opinion regarding this point on the part of the members of this
court. For this reason, after reviewing all the decisions affecting this matter,
rendered by this court both in banc and in division, it is now held that the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be taken into account in
imposing the principal penalty in its corresponding degree,
notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is also sentenced to suffer an
additional penalty as a habitual delinquent.
QUASI-RECIVIDISM (ARTICLE 160)
Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of

penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides the
provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit
a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same,
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a
habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if
he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he
shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of
his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such
clemency.
11. PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE
That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,

reward, or promise.
NOTE:
Price, reward or promise MUST be the sole motivating

factor in the commission of the crime, without which the
crime would have not been committed.
12. INUNDATION, FIRE , POISON, ETC.
That the crime be committed by means of

inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of
a vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
Paragraph 7 Paragraph 12
This refers to the occasion of a This refers to the MEANS
calamity or misfortune WHEN employed in the commission of
THE CRIME WAS the crime.
COMMITTED
13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
REQUISITES:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the
crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his
determination;
3. A sufficient interval of time between the determination and
the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.
13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
EXAMPLE:
June 10, 2019 – “A” threatened “B”, that he will kill him.
June 15, 2019 – “A” was seen sharpening his bolo and was also seen
loitering around the house of “B”
June 20, 2019 – “A” went to the house of “B” and stabbed him using a
bolo, causing “B” death
REQUISITE No. 1 - It was on June 10, 2019 when “A” verbalized his
intent to commit a crime (Kill B);
REQUISITE No. 2 - “A” clung to his determination to kill when he
was seen sharpening his bolo and loitering around the house of B
REQUISITE No. 3 - June10, 2019 to June 10, 2019 – 10 days
sufficient time lapse
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
PEOPLE VS MANALINDE
G.R. L-NO. 5292; AUGUST 28, 1909
As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order and
undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and
thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders
received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided himself with a
weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole
purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he did not know, and with whom he had
never had any trouble; nor did there exist any reason which, to a certain extent, might warrant his
perverse deed.
Even though in a crime committed upon offer of money, reward or promise, premeditation is
sometimes present, the latter not being inherent in the former, and there existing no incompatibility
between the two, premeditation can not necessarily be considered as included merely because an
offer of money, reward or promise was made, for the latter might have existed without the former,
the one being independent of the other. In the present case there can be no doubt that after the crime
was agreed upon by means of a promise of reward, the criminal by his subsequent conduct showed a
persistency and firm intent in his plan to carry out the crime which he intentionally agreed to
execute, it being immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not conceive the crime, once
Manalinde obeyed the inducement and voluntarily executed it.
PEOPLE VS ILAOA
G.R. NO. 94308; JUNE 16, 1994
Despite the foregoing, however, we hold appellant liable only for homicide,
not murder, on the ground that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the
information, namely, abuse of superior strength, cruelty and evident
premeditation, were not sufficiently proved to be appreciated against
appellant.
Evident premeditation cannot likewise be considered. There is nothing in the

records to show that appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill
Nestor de Loyola, nor is there proof to show that such killing was the result
of meditation, calculation or resolution on his part. On the contrary, the
evidence tends to show that the series of circumstances which
culminated in the killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no
interval of time separating them for calculation and meditation. Absent
any qualifying circumstance, Ruben Ilaoa should only be held liable for
homicide.
PEOPLE VS BIBAT
G.R. NO. 124319; MAY 13, 1998
Besides, even without the testimony of Rogelio Robles, the presence of the first requisite of evident
premeditation appears to have been thoroughly and sufficiently established.
The determination or conception of the plan to kill the victim could be deduced from the outward
circumstances that happened on the fateful day of October 14, 1992. Records show that at 11:30 in the
morning of October 14, 1992, prosecution witness Nona Cinco saw the accused with some companions at
Funeraria Gloria. She personally heard the plan to kill someone. Another prosecution witness, Florencio
Castro, who works at the Funeraria Gloria also saw the group of Gari Bibat in the said place. At around
1:30 in the afternoon, Nona Cinco saw the appellant for the second time. She saw the appellant hurry
towards the victim, take a pointed thing from a notebook and with the use of such weapon, stabbed the
victim on the chest. These overt acts clearly evinced that the appellant clung to his resolution to kill
the victim.
From the time Nona Cinco heard the plan to kill someone at 11:30 up to the killing incident at 1:30 in the
afternoon of the same day, there was a sufficient lapse of time for appellant to reflect on the
consequences of his dastardly act.
As held in the case of People v. Dumdum 20 the killing of the deceased was aggravated by evident
premeditation, because the accused conceived of the assault at least one hour before its perpetration. In
the case under examination, two hours had elapsed from the time appellant clung to his
determination to kill the victim up to the actual perpetration of the crime.
14. CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE
That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
CRAFT – cunning or trickery, resorted to by the accused to aid the

execution of his criminal design.
FRAUD – constitutes deceit and is manifested by insidious word and

machinations.
DISGUISE – one uses some device to prevent recognition
NOTE: Craft, Fraud, or Disguise is ABSORBED in Treachery

CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE
PEOPLE VS EMPACIS
G.R. NO. 95756 MAY 14, 1993
The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly appreciated against Empacis. He and
Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext gained entry
into the latter's store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and
ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g: where the accused —
a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence of their prey
whom they thereafter robbed and killed;
b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the house of the
victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;
c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house, in
which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine;
e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle;
f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for drink of water.
15. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the

defense.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH – present whenever there is a notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by
him in the commission of the crime.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH depends on several factors, such as:

1. age
2. size
3. sex
4. Built
5. Weapon
6. Number
7. Strength of the parties
8. Simultaneousness of the attack
9. Others
TREACHERY ABSORBS ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
15. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
BAND Abuse of superior strength

1. the offense is committed by 1. the offense is committed by the
MORE THAN 3 armed malefactors culprits taking advantage of their
REGARDLESS of the comparative collective strength to overpower
strength of the victim/victims their relatively WEAKER
victim/victims
2. The indispensable component of 2. The gravamen of the abuse of
“cuadrilla” are: superiority is the taking advantage
a. At least 4 malefactors; by the culprits of their
b. All of the 4 malefactors are COLLECTIVE STRENGTH to
ARMED overpower their relatively weaker
victims.
What is taken into account is the NOT

the number of aggressors nor the fact
that they are ARMED, BUT their
relative physical might vis-à-vis the
offended party.
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
PEOPLE VS BIGCAS
G.R. NO. 94534 JULY 2, 1992
For this qualifying circumstance to be considered, it is not sufficient that there be

superiority in number or strength; it is necessary that the accused must have
cooperated and intended to use or secure advantage from such superior
strength. 24
As we also emphasized in People vs. Cabiling, 25 abuse of superior strength may
be considered not only when there is an inequality of force between the victim
and the aggressor but there must be a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the
crime.
We find that the prosecution has fallen short of proof that appellants had
specifically contrived or deliberately intended and prepared to take advantage of
superior strength in a projected assault against the victim. This requisite cannot be
drawn from mere assumptions or conjectures, for qualifying circumstances must be
proved as conclusively as the crime itself. 26
.
15. MEANS TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
That advantage be taken of superior strength, or

means be employed to weaken the defense.
Treachery ABSORBS “means employed to weaken

the defense”.
16. TREACHERY
That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
TESTS TO DETERMINE WHTHER TREACHERY IS
PRESENT:
1. Was the attack sudden and unexpected?
2. Was the accused given an opportunity to defend himself, to
retaliate, to repel the attack or to escape?
3. Was the MODE OF ATTACK, consciously adopted by the
accused to ensure the commission of the crime without risk
to himself?
16. TREACHERY
TREACHERY CANNOT BE APPRECIATED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ATTACK WAS

SUDDEN AND UNEXPECED , IF:
1. the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done
impulsively. (People vs. Rivera; September 3, 1998)
2. the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was accidental.
(People vs. Vilbar; February 1, 2012)
3. The attack appeared to have ben impulsively done, a spur of the moment act in the heat of
anger or extreme annoyance. (People vs. Vilbar; February 1, 2012)
4. It does not appear that the aggressor consciously adapted such mode of attack to facilitate
the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself; accused did not make any
preparation before the killing. . (People vs. Rivera; September 3, 1998)
5. The encounter between the accused and the victim was a chance encounter and the
accused’s gun was in the glove compartment of his car before he left the house (People vs.
Gonzales; June 21, 2001)
6. The attack was preceded by a quarrel and a heated discussion. (People vs. Zeta; May 9,
2002)
7. The victim was already aware of the accused’s hostile attitude towards him even before
the attack; hence, he was already forewarned of the impending danger to his life. (People
vs. Cabacan; August 22, 2002)
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
1. NO TREACHERY WHEN THE VICTIM HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTER OR

EVADE THE ATTCK OR TO ESCAPE
EX. People vs. Flores; February 29, 1972
The accused made his known BEFORE the stabbing. He uttered some kind of a WARNING, and then
directed his fist blow not at the homicide victim but at another person. The deceased was therefore neither
caught by surprise nor totally unprepared when he received the wound in the right abdominal region.
2. THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM MAY HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED OF HIS PERIL DOES
NOT EXCLUDE TREACHERY. WHAT IS DECISIVE IS THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE
ATTACK MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE VICTIM TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR
RETALIATE.
EX. People vs. Landicho; July 3, 1996
The MURDER VICTIM seemed to have expected trouble, considering that upon seeing the 2 accused
approaching him, he told his companion to move away. Nevertheless, treachery may still be appreciated for
even when the victim was warned of danger to his person, what is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. The evidence CLEARY BEARS this out.
The victim was UNARMED and the accused gave no warning. The victim then totally UNPREPARED to
even guess that the accused would pepper him with bullets.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
3. When the attack is continuous and uninterrupted, treachery,
to be considered aggravating, must be present at the
inception or commencement of the attack.
EX. People vs. Zeta; May 9, 2002
Treachery must be present at the inception of the attack. If absent

and the attack is continuous, treachery, even if present at a
subsequent stage, is not to be considered. That the final blows may
have in truth been delivered under conditions exhibiting some
features of treachery does not remedy the fact that the prosecution
failed to prove the existence of treachery at the ONSET of the
attack. In the absence of qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
accused’s conviction must be modified so that he is found guilty not
of Murder but only of Homicide.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
4. Treachery is not present at the commencement of the attack that is continuous and
uninterrupted.
EX. People vs. Artajo; November 14, 2012
In a prosecution for Homicide, Dolor’s testimony contains nothing that hints upon treachery
being employed. She did not see how the attack began. As she went outside and looked, accused
Joel was already attacking her father. Quite cyriously, what she further saw was that he father
was trying to ”fight back”, nit just trying to parry Joel’s blows indicating that the latter had not
employed means that eliminate any risk to him arising from the defense which Clarence might
make. If he employed treachery, Joel could very well have aimed his fist blow to immediately
disable Clarence. On the other hand, a neighbor testified that he saw Clarence and Joel come out
of the back door of the house together. Clearly them Joel did not lie in ambush. Since theycame
out together, Clarence must have perceived the attack for he even tried to keep his grip on his
assailant after it started. Joel did not purposely stab Clarence on the back. The neighbor testified
that it was only when Clarence fell to the ground flat on his face that Joel sat astride on him and
stabbed him on the back. Those back wounds were not treacherously delivered at the beginning
with the victim having no premonition of their coming.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
5. Treachery may be considered against the accused when the same is present
at the beginning of the attack.
EX. People vs. Dolorido; January 20, 2011
The accused hid behind a coconut tree and when the victim passed by the tree,
completely unaware of any danger, the accused immediately hacked him with a bolo.
The victim could only attempt to parry the blows with his bare hands and as a result,
he got wounded. When the deceased tried to retreat, stumbling in the process, the
accused even took advantage of this and stabbed him resulting in his death.
Evidently, the means employed by the accused assured himself of no risk at all
arising from the defense which the deceased might make. What is decisive is that the
attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable
to retaliate. Without a doubt, treachery attended the Murder.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
6. There is treachery in a frontal attack when the same is sudden and unexpected
and the victim was not given a chance to defend himself, repel the attack,
retaliate or evade the attack
EX. People vs. Escleto; April 25, 2012
The victim alighted from his carabao and even waited for a while for the assailant to
come down the balcony, ready for a handshake. He was walking to meet the accused,
expecting that they would not talk. He was surprised that the handshake was in the form
of a knife being plunged towards his chest that he could not even block the blow or
dodge it. He just stood there in surprise as the assailant suddenly hacked him. The
deceased was unarmed while the accused had a knife. Even though the attack on the
victim was frontal, the same was so sudden and unexpected. He was completely
unaware of the imminent peril to his life. The victim was deprived of the opportunity to
defend himself and repel the attack . The victim was not even anle to offer any form of
resistance. He never saw it coming that he would be stabbed. Treachery qualified the
crime to Murder.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
7. The fact that the accused fired his gun from behind the
victim does not by itself amount to treachery
EX. People vs. Gonzales; June 21, 2001
The fact that the accused fired his gun from behind the homicide
victim does not by itself amount to treachery. There is no evidence
on record that the accused deliberately positioned himself behind
the victim to gain advantage over him when he fired the shot. On
the contrary, the evidence reveals that the position of the accused’s
car was not of his own doing but it became so when the victim
overtook his car and cut off his path.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
8. Attacking a child o f tender years constitutes treachery.
EX. People vs. Sanchez; June 29, 2010
A mother turned her 11-year-old son upside down only to discover

that he was bathed in blood. The son weakly uttered “Mama, si
kuya Albert sinaksak ako”. At this point, the accused ran outside the
room. There is treachery when an adult person attacks and causes
the death of a child of tender years. As the Supreme Court
elucidated in People vs. Cabarrubias “the killing of a child is
characterized by treachery even if the manner of assault is not
shown. For, the weakness of the victim due to his tender years
results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
16. TREACHERY
NOTE:
9. Attacking a sleeping victim or one who has just woken up

constitutes treachery.
EX. People vs. Bernal; September 2, 2002
In a prosecution for Murder, the attack on the victim was sudden

and unexpected, and this was evident in the manner the accused
shot his victim – from behind and while asleep, giving his victim no
opportunity to defend himself or repel the accused’s attack. .
16. TREACHERY
Treachery may absorbed other aggravating circumstances:
1. Taking advantage of public position – People vs. Garciola;

October 30, 29151
The victim was hiding in his house. Probably the accused’s

act in mentioning his office as a peace officer was a part of his
scheme to catch the victim unaware. The accused stabbed the
victim as soon as the latter opened up. This constitutes treachery
that qualified the crime as Murder. Taking advantage of public
position may therefore be considered as ABSORBED in the
element of treachery, and cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in computing the penalty.
16. TREACHERY
2. Abuse of Superior Strength– People vs. Damiar; February 20,

1984
Taking advantage od superior strength is absorbed in

treachery- it cannot be estimated as an independent aggravating
circumstance when treachery is present.
3. Nighttime – People vs. Pinca; February 28, 1962
Except in special cases, nighttime and treachery always go

together and are absorbed in the same offense.
16. TREACHERY
4. Abuse of Superior Strength and aid of armed men – People vs.

Ronquillo; April 5, 2002
Although the murderous attack was frontal, treachery was

present since the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim
was not in a position to offer an effective defense. The accused and
his armed companions also positioned themselves behind the fence
at the compound, which showed the employment of a means of
execution that insured their safety from any defensive or retaliatory
act on the part of the victim or residents of the compound. The
other qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength and aid
of armed men are absorbed by treachery and cannot be appreciated
separately.
16. TREACHERY
5. Band and Abuse of Superior Strength– People vs. Bantillo;

October 23, 2000
Treachery absorbs both aggravating circumstances of band

and abuse of superior strength.
6. Craft, Fraud and Disguise– People vs. Malig; May 30, 1949
Craft may well be included in and absorbed by treachery

because it was used to insure the commission of the Murder without
any danger or risk to the culprits.
16. TREACHERY
7. By taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed

men or by employing means to weaken the defense– People vs.
Hernandez; February 27, 1990
The crime committed by the accused was Murder with

treachery by taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed
men or by employing means to weaken the defense. Three men, armed
with a knife, crept up in the dark against a defenseless and unsuspecting
victim, who was answering a call of nature. When two of the victim’s
attackers pinioned his arms so that their companion could stab him
repeatedly and with impunity, they thereby employed means which
assured the execution of the Murder without risk to themselves arising
from the defense that heir victim might make.
16. TREACHERY
Treachery may absorbed other aggravating

circumstances:
7. Taking advantage of public position, abuse of superior

strength and nocturnity– People vs. Pascual; December 5,
1991
Taking advantage of public position, abuse of

superior strength and nocturnity, are deemed absorbed in
treachery and cannot be separately considered. .
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS SANGALANG
G.R. NO. L-32914 ; AUGUST 30, 1974
The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree. He
was unarmed and defenseless. He was not expecting to be assaulted. He did
not give any immediate provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack shows
that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode of execution which
insured the killing without any risk to them arising from any defense
which the victim could have made. The qualifying circumstance of
treachery (alevosia), which was alleged in the information, was duly
established (See art. 14[16], Revised Penal Code). Hence, the killing can be
categorized as murder (See People v. Sedenio, 94 Phil. 1046). Treachery
absorbs the aggravating circumstance of band (U. S. v. Abelinde, 1 Phil.
568).
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS SAN PEDRO
G.R. NO. L-44274; JANUARY 22, 1980
We cannot subscribe to the theory of craft being absorbed by treachery, as nighttime and
abuse of superior strength may be so absorbed, as held in numerous decisions of this Court.'
In the instant case, craft was employed not with a view to making treachery more
effective as nighttime and abuse of superior strength would in the killing of the victim. It
was directed actually towards facilitating the taking of the jeep in the robbery scheme as
planned by the culprits. From the definition of treachery, it is manifest that the element of
defense against bodily injury makes treachery proper for consideration only in crimes against
person as so explicitly provided by the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14[16]).
Aside from the foregoing observation, decisional rulings argue against appellant's submission.
Thus in the case of U.S. vs. Gampona, et al., 36 Phil. 817 (1917) where the crime charged
was murder, qualified by treachery, craft was considered separately to aggravate the
killing. Note that in this cited case, the crime was killing alone, which has a weightier
rationale. for, merging the two aggravating circumstances, than when, as in crime of robbery
with homicide, craft has a very distinct application to the crime of robbery, separate and
independent of the homicide. Yet, it was held that craft and treachery were separate and
distinct aggravating circumstances. The same ruling was announced in People vs. Sakam, et
al., 61 Phil. 27 (1934).
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS CASTILLO
GR NO. 120282; APRIL 20 1998
Nonetheless, we hold that the killing was qualified by treachery. "Treachery is

committed when two conditions concur, namely, that the means, methods, and forms
of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or
to retaliate[;] and that such means, methods, and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person." 45
These requisites were evidently present in this case when the accused appeared
from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just he was
bidding goodbye to his friend, Witness Velasco. Said action rendered it difficult
for the victim to defend himself. The presence of "defense wounds" does not negate
treachery because, as testified to by Velasco, the first stab, fatal as it was, was
inflicted on the chest. The incised wounds in the arms were inflicted when the victim
was already rendered defenseless.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS ARIZOBAL
G.R. NO. 135051-52, 14 DECEMBER 2000
But treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court.

The accused stand charged with, tried and convicted of
robbery with homicide. This special complex crime is
primarily classified in this jurisdiction as a crime against
property, and not against persons, homicide being merely
an incident of robbery with the latter being the main purpose
and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be
validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS ESCOTE
G.R. NO. 140756. APRIL 4, 2003
Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially punishable
by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty
therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide.
Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide
for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime.
In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the law
looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime
of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of homicide and
not to the constituent crime of robbery of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special
complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS ESCOTE
G.R. NO. 140756. APRIL 4, 2003
Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and
prescribing the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with
homicide.
Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with

homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime.
In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide,
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the
constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied to the constituent
crime of homicide and not to the constituent crime of robbery of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a
special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with
Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS VILLONEZ
G.R. NOS. 122976-77; NOVEMBER 16, 1998
However, we do not share the assessment of the trial court that there was
no treachery in this case because the victim had engaged in a fight
previous to the killing and was thus forewarned of an attack against
him.
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of
danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.31 The
overwhelming number of the accused, their use of weapons against the
unarmed victim, and the fact that the victims hands were held behind him
preclude the possibility of any defense by the victim.
The other qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which the
trial court appreciated, will no longer be taken against accused-appellants,
for it is absorbed in treachery.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS GUZMAN
G.R. NO. 169246 JANUARY 26, 2007
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential elements/conditions are required in order that treachery may be
appreciated:
1. The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender’s safety from any
retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation;
2. Deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution.
Further, it must always be alleged in the information and proved in trial in order that it may be validly considered.
In the instant case, treachery was alleged in the Information against appellant. Moreover, all the essential
elements/conditions of treachery were established and proven during the trial.
After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni Kristo church in his barangay, Michael proceeded home. While
Michael was casually walking along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant and his two
companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly approached and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned
himself at the back of Michael while his two companions stood in front of Michael. In an instant, they grabbed the
shoulders of Michael and overpowered the latter. One of the appellant’s companions, whom the prosecution
witnesses described as a male with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Michael on the stomach.
Unsatisfied, the appellant’s other companion, whom the prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat top hair ,
took the knife and stabbed Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in front of Michael, took the
knife and also stabbed Michael on the stomach. When Michael fell on the ground, appellant kicked him at the
body. Upon noticing that the bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant and his two companions fled the scene.
TREACHERY
PEOPLE VS GUZMAN
G.R. NO. 169246 JANUARY 26, 2007
As viewed from the foregoing, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of appellant and his two
companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape.
It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack. Further, he was merely seventeen years of
age then.38 In such a helpless situation, it was absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself against
the assault of appellant and his two companions. Being young and weak, Michael is certainly no match against adult
persons like appellant and his two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three assailants, and,
was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two companions took advantage of their size,
number, and weapon in killing Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting the cruel
death of Michael by first surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering him. Afterwards, each
of them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground. The stab
wounds sustained by Michael proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter’s large intestine.39
The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people were walking then in different
directions does not negate treachery. It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. 40 This is even more true if the assailant is
an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists. 41 As we earlier found, Michael was
peacefully walking and not provoking anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to death by appellant and his two
companions. Further, Michael was a minor at the time of his death while appellant and his two companions were adult
persons.
17. IGNOMINY
That means be employed or circumstances brought

about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
act.
IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral

order, which adds DIDGRACE and OBLOQUY to the
material injury caused by the crime.
NOTE: the intention of the accused was to cause

humiliation or shame on the victim.
17. IGNOMINY
NOTE:
1. THERE IS NO IGNOMINY IF THE VICTIM WAS

ALREADY DEAD WHEN THE IGNOMINOUS ACT WAS
COMMITTED
a. Slicing the corpse – People vs. Fuertes; February 28, 2000

b. Body was dismembered – People vs. Carmina; January 28, 1991
c. Taking of flesh from the thighs, legs and shoulder of the victim –
People vs, Ferrera ; June 18, 1987
REASON: because what is required is that the crime be committed

in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the
victim, that is, adds to his MORAL SUFFERING
17. IGNOMINY
2. People vs. Valla; January 24, 2000
The pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a

contact with a lighted cigarette. This circumstance added disgrace
and obloquy to the material injury inflicted upon the victim of the
crime of rape with homicide.
3. People. Soriano; June 24, 1983
In prosecution for robbery with rape, the victim was raped in the
presence of the husband who was hogtied was beside her on the
floor. Disgrace or obloquy was added to the natural effects of the
Rape, making the outrage more humiliating.
17. IGNOMINY
4. People vs. Bumindang; December 4, 2000
The accused used the flashlight and examined the

genital of the victim before he ravished her. He
committed his bestial deed in the presence of the
victim’s older father. These facts clearly show that the
accused deliberately wanted to further humiliate the
victim, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral
suffering.
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS TORREFIEL
CA-GR. NO. 659-R, 29 NOVEMBER 1947
The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his

genitals before raping the victim , augmented the wrong
done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace
thereto.
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS JOSE
L-28232, 6 FEBRUARY 1971
ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant

to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten
minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance
which tended to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating;
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS BUTLER
L-50276, 27 JANUARY 1983
While We reject the presence of treachery, We, however, find and

sustain the finding of the lower court that the aggravating
circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased
applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked
or outraged at the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal
intercourse with her after she was already dead. The fact that the
muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa
in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas, the medico-
legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report,
Exhibit "B1 ", clearly established the coitus after death. This act of the
accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is,
undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS SAYLAN
G.R. NO. L-36941 JUNE 29, 1984
The trial court held that there was ignominy because the
appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
supenor female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs
do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was
no ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the
matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has
repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act
is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.
IGNOMINY
PEOPLE VS SULTAN
GR. 132470; APRIL 27, 2000
The trial court held that there was ignominy because the
appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
supenor female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs
do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was
no ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the
matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has
repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation. (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be if the sexual act
is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not intended

for the purpose.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY is inherent in the following felonies:
1. Violation of domicile (Art. 128 RPC)

2. Evasion of sentence (2nd sentence Art, 157 RPC)
3. Trespass to Dwelling (280 RPC)
4. Robbery in an Inhabited Place, Public Building or place dedicated to
religious worship (Art. 299 a1 RPC)
5. Robbery with Homicide
6. Robbery in an Inhabited place or in a private building
NOTE: UNLAWFUL ENTRY cannot include means to ESCAPE.

19. BREAKING OF WALL, ROOF, FLOOR , DOOR
ETC.
That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door or

window be broken.
NOTE:
To be considered as an aggravating circumstance, breaking a wall, roof,
floor, door or window MUST BE USED AS A MEANS TO COMMIT
THE CRIME.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAR. 18 (UNLAWFUL ENTRY) and PAR. 19

(BREAKING OF WALL AND ETC.) – People vs. Lamosa; May 23, 1989
The crime committed by the accused for the killing of the victim is simple
Homicide, with the aggravating circumstance of breaking a wall or door to
gain entry, instead of Unlawful Entry, as erroneously found by the trial
court, since, the accused rammed the DOOR off its hinges in order to gain
entry. Unlawful Entry exists only when the entrance into a building is
made by a way NOT for the purpose of Entry.
19. BREAKING OF WALL, ROOF, FLOOR , DOOR
ETC.
Breaking of a wall, roof, floor, door or window is INHERENT

in the following crimes:
1. Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice

devoted for Religious Worship (Art. 299 A2 RPC); and
2. Robbery in an Uninhabited Place or in a Private Building (Art.

302 RPC)
NOTE:
Unlawful Entry (Par. 18) absorbs breaking down a wall (Par. 19)
(People vs. Bondoy; May 18,1993)
20. AID OD PERSONS UNDER 15 OR MOTOR
VEHICLE
That the crime be committed with the aid of persons

under 15 years of age, or by means of motor vehicles,
airships, or other similar means.
USE OF MOTOR VEHICLE:
1. Used to facilitate the commission of the crime;
2. Used in going to the place of the crime;
3. Used to carry away effects of the crime; and
4. Used to facilitate their escape.

21. CRUELTY
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing
another wrong not necessary for its commission. .
CRUELTY – when the culprit enjoys and delights in making the victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
EXAMPLES:
1. Pouring hot liquid to the victim at various times before committing Murder (People vs.
Mariano; December 6, 2000)
2. The victim was stoned, stabbed and beheaded. (People vs. Valdez; January 24, 2011)
3. Strangulating the victim with a rope and setting him on fire as the victim was dying after he
was truck twice in head (People vs. Develos; January 31, 1966)
4. Cutting the ear of the victim in a case for Murder (People vs. Mendoza)
5. Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face
with a lighted cigarette while raping her laughing all the way (People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA
315).
21. CRUELTY
DISTINCTION between CRUELTY and IGNOMINY
Ignominy – Moral suffering
Cruelty – induces physical suffering.
Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances brought about

which are not necessary in the commission of the crime.
OUTRAGING OR SCOFFING OF CORPSE
OUTRAGED – subject to gross insult.
SCOFF – show contempt by derisive acts or language.
EXAMPLES:
1. Having anal intercourse after the victim was already dead. (People vs. Butler;
January 27, 1983);
2. The corpse of the victim was dismembered with the cutting off the head and limbs
and the opening up of the body to remove the intestines, lungs and liver (People
vs. Carmina; January 28, 1991)
3. Dumping the body of the victim into a ravine in order to hide the effects of his
criminal acts (People vs. Obenque; January 30, 1987)
NOTE: In scoffing at the victim, the accused must be already dead AFTER the
acts were committed.
OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE 14
1. Art. 128 par. 2 RPC – If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a
crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender in
violation of domicile.
2. Art. 132 par. 2 RPC – if the crime shall have been committed with violence or
threats in interruption of religious worship.
3. Art. 148 RPC – When the assault is committed with a weapon or when the
offender is a public officer or employee or when the offender lays hands upon a
person in authority in direct assault.
4. Art. 265 RPC - If inflicted upon the offender’s patients ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers or persons of rank, or persons in authority in less serious
[physical injuries.
5. Art. 272 RPC - If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the
offended party to some immoral traffic in slavery.
OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE 14
6. Art. 286 - RPC If the offense be committed by means of

violence or intimidation in qualified trespass to dwelling.
7. Art. 282 RPC - If the threat be made in writing or through a

middleman in Grave Threats.
8. Art. 286 RPC – If the coercion be committed for the purpose of

compelling another to perform any religious act or to prevent
him from so doing in Grave Coercion.
9. Art. 350 RPC - If either of the contracting parties shall obtain

the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or
fraud in marriage contracted against provisions of laws.
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
(PD NO. 1689)
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other

forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life
imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a
syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or
farmers association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty
imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the
amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
LARGE SCALE OR SYNDICATE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042)
SECTION 6
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate
or in large scale shall be considered as offense
involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a

syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one
another.
It is deemed committed in large scale if committed

against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.
USE OF ILLEGAL FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime.

The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance: Provided,
That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law
with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section
for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be
imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further,
That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law
with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section
for illegal possession of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the
violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
PEOPLE VS LADJAALAM
G.R. NOS. 136149-51; SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that “no other
crime was committed by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer
only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where the
law does not distinguish, neither should [the courts].
A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the “other crime” is murder or
homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate
offense.
Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be
held liable for illegal possession of firearms.
The Court is aware that this ruling effectively absolves the appellant of illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an
offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct assault. While the penalty for the first
is prision mayor, for the second it is only prision correccional. Indee d, the accused may evade conviction for
illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and
scandal or slight physical injuries, both of which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however,
necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any
perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no
discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest intendment and language of the
legislature. [The Court's] task is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and jurisprudence to the
proven facts, and [this Court] have done so in this case.
CELINO VS COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 170562; JUNE 29, 2007
In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated

under R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm
should be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have
to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,40 or absorbed as an
element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat.41
Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated
under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm
should continue to be prosecuted.
USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in

the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the
Influence of Dangerous Drugs.
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance
in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised
Penal Code shall be applicable.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY, THROUGH AND WITH THE USE OF
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Section 6.
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered by the
relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher
than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

Luzon Lectures Aggravating

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luzon Lectures Aggravating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 14

1. GENERIC - apply generally to all crimes

1. GENERIC - apply generally to all crimes

2. SPECIFIC - apply only to particular crimes

4. INHERENT - necessarily accompanies the commission

5. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE -

Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as aggravating

That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

1. Must be a public official; and

* Did the accused ABUSE his office in order to commit the

The mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the

The trial court properly appreciated taking

That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to

Person in authority- public authority who is directly

However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime

2. that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the

DWELLING - must be a building or structure exclusively used for

a. Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and

e. Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. All the

DWELLING is not aggravating when it is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A

But it was unlikely in this case that Tadia, a sexagenarian

The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating.

To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is rape

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or

PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE - official residence and place work

REASON: Specific evidence must be shown that the accused

That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive

PLACE WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN

That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive

PLACE DEDICATED FOR WORSHIP– not required that there be

That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an

NIGHT TIME – that period of DARKNESS beginning the end of

GENERAL RULE: the mere fact that it was committed at NIGHT

2 tests in determining NOCTURNITY:

1. OBJECTIVE TEST - night is aggravating because the

2. SUBJECTIVE TEST – night is aggravating because the

NOTE: TREACHERY absorbs NOCTURNITY

NOTE: the uninhabited place must have been DELIBERATELY

ARMS – may include, guns, revolvers, bolos, daggers, swords,

The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may

The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity cannot be considered

That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,

That the crime be committed with the aid of armed

AID OF ARMED MEN BAND

NOTE: Aid of armed men is

That the accused is a recidivist.

Four types of criminal repetition in the Penal Code:

1. Recidivism - (Art. 14 par. 9)

The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the

1. It is not necessary that the felonies 1. The previous and subsequent

Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:

1. there must be a third conviction;

Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of

That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,

Price, reward or promise MUST be the sole motivating

That the crime be committed by means of

That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.

Evident premeditation cannot likewise be considered. There is nothing in the

That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

CRAFT – cunning or trickery, resorted to by the accused to aid the

FRAUD – constitutes deceit and is manifested by insidious word and

DISGUISE – one uses some device to prevent recognition