CHAPTER 5:

MURDER
BY: RET. PLT COL MARIO BAESA GARCIA
 Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of any
person when qualified by any of the circumstances
listed under Art 248 of the RPC, among which
alevosia
 Art. 248. Murder- any person who, not falling
within the provision of Art. 246 shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death,
if committed with the following circumstances:
a.With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or person to insure or afford
impunity.
b.In consideration of a price or reward or promise.
c.By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
volcanic eruption, destructive cyclone, epidemic or
other public calamity.
e. With evident premeditation
f. By cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoping at his person or corpse.
 Treachery means that the offended party was not
given the opportunity to make a defense.
 To establish treachery, the evidence must show
that the accused made some preparation to kill the
victim in such a manner to insure the execution of
the crime or make it impossible or hard for the
person attacked to defend himself. But killing done
at the spur of the moment is not treacherous.
 Abused of superior strength and night time are absorbed
in treachery. In treachery, what is decisive is that the
attack was executed in such a manner as to make it
impossible for the victim to retaliate.
 The killing of the victim frontally does not negate
treachery when the victim was killed after already being
in a helpless condition.
 It may also be appreciated even if the attack was frontal
but no less unexpected and sudden, giving the victim no
opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Elements:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit
the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had
slung to his determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and the execution to allow the accused to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.
 The elements of evident premeditation must be
established with equal certainty and clarity as the
criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a
qualifying circumstances

Premeditation is the act of mediating in advance;

deliberation upon a contemplated act; a designed
form to do something before it is done.
 The essence of premeditation is that the execution
of criminal act must be preceded by COOL
THOUGHT AND REFLECTION upon the
resolution to carry out of the criminal intent during
the space of time SUFFICIDENT to arrive at a
calm judgment. There is no evident premeditation
without proof of planning.
TREACHERY
 There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons: 1) 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; 2) deliberately or consciously adopted the
means of execution. Art. 14 para., 16 RPC.
 The essence of treachery is that the attack is
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and
unexpected manner, affording the helpless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. It must be clearly shown that the
method of assault adopted by the aggressor was
deliberately chosen to accomplish the crime
without risk to the aggressor.
 Treachery was established in the following
scenario:
1. The suspect approached the victim from behind
and assaulted him without any provocation
whatsoever. No altercation preceded the
incident and there was nothing to warn the
victim of any impending attack on his person,
which would put him on guard against suspect’s
offensive.
 Although the victim sensed that he was being
tailed by the suspect and he was able to run
around and see his attacker, the suddenness of
the assault and the immediate infliction of four
consecutive stab wounds ensured that he would
not be able to retaliate or defend himself.
2. The victim was on his way home. He was
expecting to be greeted by his family, when the
suspect suddenly emerged from a bamboo
enclosure. Suspect, who was at that time already
holding a gun, positioned himself at the back of
the victim. From there, he promptly fired at him
from behind, while he uttered words, “eto and
hinahanap mo bong”, at the same time firing at
the victim, that barely warned the latter nor gave
him ample time to put up even a semblance of
defense.
 In fact, the only reaction the victim was able to
make was to try to turn his face towards the
direction where he heard the voice come from.
 Treachery can only be considered as a qualifying
circumstance that would affect the nature of crime
and not as a generic aggravating circumstance
that would raise the penalty to death.
Taking advantage of Public Position:
 To be aggravating, the public officer must use
the influence, prestige or ascendancy which
his office gives him as a means by which he
realizes his purpose.
Nighttime:
 Becomes an aggravating circumstances when;
1) it was specifically sought by the offender; or 2)
it was taken advantage of by him; 3) it facilitated
the commission of the crime by insuring the
offender’s immunity from capture, although the
crime was committed at 7o’clock, no evidence
was presented showing that nighttime specially
sought by the offender to consummate the crime
or to facilitate its commission
Cruelty/Ignominy:
 To be appreciated, there must be proof that the
accused delighted in making their victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary
physical and moral paint in the consummation of
the crime act. The accused burned the body of the
deceased is not sufficient to show that means
were employed which added ignominy to the
natural effect of the act, nor may cruelty was
found because there is no showing that the victim
was burned while he was still alive.