8/9/2019 art14, rpc

1/16

4. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in thecommission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without,however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by lawfor the offense.

They are based on the greater perversity of the offendermanifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:

a. motivating power itself;b. the place of commission;

c. the means and ways employed;d. the time; ore. the personal circumstances of the offender, or of

the offended party.

FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES1. GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all

crimes. !os. 1, ", # $dwelling%, &, ', (, ), 1*, 1&, 1+, 1), and "*except by means of motor vehicles-.

". SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particularcrimes. !os. # $except dwelling%, 1', 1(, 1 and "1.

#. QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of thecrime. Art. "&+ enumerates the /ualifying A0 which /ualify theilling of person to murder.

&. INHERENT Those that must accompany thecommission of the crime.

GENERIC AC QUALIFYING ACThe effect of a generic A0,not offset by anymitigating circumstance, isto increase the penaltywhich should be imposedupon the accused to the2A34252 67849.

The effect of a /ualifyingA0 is not only to give thecrime its proper andexclusive name but also toplace the author thereof insuch a situation as todeserve no other penaltythan that speciallyprescribed by law for saidcrime.

A generic aggravatingcircumstance may becompensated by amitigating circumstance.

A /ualifying A0 cannot beoffset by a mitigatingcircumstance.

According to the new rules, generic and /ualifying

aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order tobe appreciated.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT HAVE THEEFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY

A0 1% which in themselves constitute a crime speciallypunishable by law, or b% which are included by the law in defininga crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taeninto account for the purpose of increasing the penalty $Art. (",par. 1%

A0 which arise: a% from the moral attributes of the offender orb% from his private relations with the offended party, or c% fromany other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate theliability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whomsuch circumstances are attendant.

Art. 14.Aggravating circumtanc!" The following areaggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taen by the offender of his publicposition.

". That the crime be committed in contempt or withinsult to the public authorities.

#. That the act be committed with insult or in disregardof the respect due the offended party on account of his ran, age,or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offendedparty, if the latter has not given provocation.

&. That the act be committed with abuse of confidenceor obvious ungratefulness.

'. That the crime be committed in the palace of the0hief 7xecutive or in his presence, or where public authorities are

engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated toreligious worship.

(. That the crime be committed in the night time, or inan uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstancemay facilitate the commission of the offense.

ed watercraft, airships, or other similar means. $Aamended by 8A '+%.

"1. That the wrong done in the commission of the crimebe deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessaryfor its commissions.

Peope !. A"to"#o $%&&%'Facts: ?evin 6aul, yr old son of the victim @ergio was

lying on the bed beside his father @ergio in the bedroom when heheard a window being opened and the sound of feet stepping onthe floor. Then someone iced open the door to the bedroom?evin saw

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

2/16

Peope !. S(e) $%&&%'Facts: Crothers 7dgar and !erio @uela, and 7dgardo

Catocan sporting si mass, bonnests and gloves, brandishinghandguns and nife barged into the room of irector 8osas whowas watching television together with his adopted son, !ormanand his friend Dabilo. They threatened 8osas, !orman and Dabiloto give the location of their money and valuables, which theyeventually too. They dragged Dabilo downstairs with them. 5pon!erioEs instructions, Catocan stabbed Dabilo ' times which causedthe latterEs death . The trial court sentenced 7dgar, !erio andCatocan to suffer the penalty of death appreciating the

aggravating circumstance of disguise which was not alleged in the4nformation against the three.Held: Following current 8ules on 0riminal 6rocedure

particularly @ection ) of the new 8ule 11*, and current=urisprudence, the aggravating circumstance of disguise cannot beappreciated against appellants. 4nasmuch as the same was notalleged in the 4nformation, the aggravating circumstance ofdisguise cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty todeath notwithstanding the fact that the new rule re/uiring suchallegation was promulgated only after the crime was committedand after the trial court has already rendered its ecision.

4t is acardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given

retroactiveapplication insofar as they benefit the accused.

Peope !. Me"*o+) $%&&&'Facts: Anchito and 2arianito passed by appellantGs

house and ased for a drin from appellantGs wife, 7mily. Anchitobegan taling with 7mily and they were about & rmsBlength from

2arianito when appellant suddenly appeared. Appellant hacedAnchito on the nape, which prompted 2arianito to flee out of fearfor his life. Anchito died in a neeling position with hac woundsat the bac of the nec and body. Appellant voluntary surrendere.The trial court ruled that voluntary surrender was Hoffset by theaggravating circumstance of treachery.

Held: The trial court erred in ruling that voluntarysurrender was Hoffset by the aggravating circumstance oftreachery. Treachery in the present case is a /ualifying, not ageneric aggravating circumstance. 4ts presence served tocharacteri>e the illing as murder; it cannot at the same time beconsidered as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant theimposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot offsetvoluntary surrender.

P)r. 1. , THAT ADVANTAGE -E TAKEN -Y THE OFFENDEROF HIS PU-LIC POSITION.

The public officer must use the influence, prestige orascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which hereali>es his purpose. The essence of the matter is presented inthe in/uiry, did the accused abuse his office in order to committhe crimeI-

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

3/16

The crime should not be committed against the public authorityor else it becomes direct assault.

Kac of nowledge on the part of the offender that a publicauthority is present indicates lac of intention to insult the publicauthority.

P)r. 7.B THAT THE ACT -E COMMITTED $1' ITH INSULTOR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDEDPARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS $)' RANK8 $9' AGE8 OR $/'SE:8 OR $%' THAT IS -E COMMITTED IN THE DELLING OF

THE OFFENDED PARTY8 IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVENPROVOCATION.

Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, whichcan be considered single or together. 4f all the & circumstancesare present, they have the weight of one aggravatingcircumstance only.

This circumstance $ran, age or sex% may be taen into accountonly in crimes against person or honor.

There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime,the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex orage of the offended party.

$1' ITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THEREPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT5

#a$ OF THE RAN% OF THE OFFENDED PARTYex. An attempt upon the life of a general of the

6hilippine Army is committed in disregard of his ran.

$9' OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTYex.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

4/16

considering dwelling an A0 is the violation by the offender of thesanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein tocommit the crime. This reason is entirely absent in this case.

Peope !. L)p)+ $100'Facts: 7ulalia 0abunag, a *ByearBold woman who was

living alone, was beaten to death by # men. Appellant Carleso,Kapa> and 0ristoto agreed to ill 7ulalia because there was oneincident when the victim called Carleso a thief in front of manypeople.

Held: The presence of treachery is clear as Carlesoinvited two companions to help him execute his plan to beat the

victim to death with pieces of wood in the middle of the nightinsuring the illing of the victim without ris to himself arisingfrom the defense with the offended party might mae.

obal and two others entered the house o

spouses 0lementina and Kaurencio Dimene>. They then ransacethe house and ordered Kaurencio to go with them to his soJimmyEs house. 5pon reaching the house of Jimmy, they tied thelatter and one Francisco also surnamed Dimene>. They consumedthe food and cigarettes JimmyEs wife 7rlinda, was selling. Theyproceeded to ransaced the household in search of valuablesThereafter, 7rlinda was ordered to produce 61**,** in exchangefor JimmyEs life. 7rlinda offered to give a certificate of large cattlebut the document was thrown bac at her. The # then draggedJimmy outside the house together with Kaurencio. 9ne of thculprits returned and told 7rlinda that Jimmy and Kaurencio hadbeen illed for trying to escape. The trial court found Ari>obal andKignes guilty of robbery with homicide. 4t also appreciated theaggravating circumstance of dwelling.

Held:The trial court is correct in appreciating dwellingas an aggravating circumstance. Denerally, dwelling is considereinherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abodof the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in aninhabited place. owever, in robbery with homicide the authorthereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing thesanctity of the victimGs domicile. 4n the case at bar, the robbersdemonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of thvictimsG abode when they forced their way in, looted their housesintimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submissiondisabled Kaurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands befordragging them out of the house to be illed.

P)r. 4. , THAT THE ACT -E COMMITTED ITH $1' A-USE OFCONFIDENCE OR $%' O-VIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

5/16

$1'A-USE OF CONFIDENCE

REQUISITES5a. That the offended party had trusted the offender.b. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime

against the offended party.c. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of

the crime.

The confidence between the offender and the offended partymust be immediate and personal.

4t is inherent in malversation, /ualified theft, estafa byconversion or misappropriation and /ualified seduction.

$%' O-VIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

The ungratefulness must be obvious manifest andclear.

Peope !. M)"*o)*o $107'Facts: 2andolado and 9rtillano, with 7rinada and @imon

are traineesOdraftees of the AF6. They got to now each other andhad a drining session at the bus terminal. The accused wasdrun. e got his gun and started firing. 7rinada and @imon rodea =eep and tried to escape from 2andolado and 9rtillano but thetwo eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot thevictims to death.

Held: There is no A0 of abuse of confidence. 4n order

that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it isnecessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidencebetween the accused and one against whom the crime wascommitted and that the accused made use of such a relationshipto commit the crime. 4t is also essential that the confidencebetween the parties must be immediate and personal such aswould give the accused some advantage to commit the crime. 4t isobvious that the accused and the victims only met for the firsttime so there is no personal or immediate relationship upon whichconfidence might rest between them.

Peope !. Arro>)*o $%&&1'Facts: Arro=ado and the victim 2ary Ann are first cousins

and lived with her and her father. Arro=ado helped care for thevictimEs father for which he was paid a 61,*** monthly salary.Arro=ado illed 2ary Ann by stabbing her with a nife. Thereafterhe claimed that the latter committed suicide.

Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse ofconfidence is present in this case. For this aggravatingcircumstance to exist, it is essential to show that the confidencebetween the parties must be immediate and personal such aswould give the accused some advantage or mae it easier for himto commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a means offacilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taingadvantage of the offended partyGs belief that the former would notabuse said confidence.

Peope !. S#!) $%&&%'Facts:Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a rope and a

flashlight abducted brothers 7dmund and 2anuel 0eriales whilethe two were playing a game of cards inside their house in themiddle of the night. They tied both their hands and feet with arope and they brought the brothers at an isolated place. 7dmundwas stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death.7dmund 0eriales was able to escape while the accused wereabout to ill his brother. The trial court appreciated nighttime asan aggravating circumstance.

Held:Cy and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravatingcircumstance, however, it becomes aggravating only when: $1% itis especially sought by the offender; or $"% it is taen advantageof by him; or $#% it facilitates the commission of the crime byensuring the offenderGs immunity from capture. 4n this case, thetrial court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravatingconsidering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of the 0erialesbrothers, the illing of 2anuel and the attempt to ill 7dmund.7vidence shows that accusedBappellants too advantage of thedarness to successfully consummate their plans. The fact thatthey brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that theyintended to commit the crime in darness.

Peope !. A"/?et) $%&&4'Facts: Appellant 5lep and his group, robbed Alfredo

8oca of #' sacs of 6alay after illing his son, his wife and hismother with their guns. Thereafter, they boarded their =eep andleft.

Held: The offense was proven to have been executed bya band. A crime is committed by a band when at least four armedmalefactors act together in the commission thereof. 4n this caseall six accused were armed with guns which they used on theivictims. 0learly, all the armed assailants too direct part in theexecution of the robbery with homicide.

Peope !. L#9r)"*o $%&&&'Facts:7dwin and his daughter Aileen, and a relativeFernando, were traversing a hilly portion of a trail on their wayhome when they met 8aelito Kibrando, Karry and 7ddie. 7dwinwas carrying a torch at that time as it was already dar. 8aelitoin/uired from 7dwin the whereabouts of Fernando and withouany warning hit 7dwin with a piece of wood. 7ddie followed suiand delivered another blow to 7dwin. 7dwin ran but he wachased by 8aelito. Thereafter, the three men too turns hitting7dwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and died. The triacourt considered nighttime and uninhabited place as =ust onaggravating circumstance.

Held:The court did not err in considering nighttime anduninhabited place as =ust one aggravating circumstance. The courcited the case of 6eople vs. @antos where it has been held that ifthe aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place oband concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one

aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they cabe considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceivedand can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree operversity.

P)r. @. , THAT THE CRIME -E COMMITTED IN THE PALACEOF THE CHIEF E:ECUTIVE OR IN HIS PRESENCE8 ORHERE PU-LIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THEDISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES8 OR IN A PLACE DEDICATEDTO RELIGIOUS ORSHIP.

PLACE HER PU-LICAUTHORITIES AREENGAGED IN THE

DISCHARGE OF THEIRDUTIES $p)r. @'

CONTEMPT OR INSULTTO PU-LIC

AUTHORITIES$p)r. %'

The public authorities are in the performance of theirduties.

The public authorities whoare in the performance oftheir duties must be intheir office.

The public authorities areperforming their dutiesoutside of their offices.

The public authority maybe the offended party.

The public authorityshould not be the offendedparty.

4f it is the 2alacaNang palace or a church, it is aggravatingregardless of whether @tate or official or religious functions arebeing held.

The 6resident need not be in the palace. is presence alone inany place where the crime is committed is enough to constitutethe A0. 4t also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge

of his duties in the place where the crime was committed.

Cut as regards the place where the public authorities areengaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be someperformance of public functions.

0emeteries are not places dedicated for religious worship.

9ffender must have the intention to commit a crime when heentered the place.

P)r. . , THAT THE CRIME -E COMMITTED $1' IN THENIGHT TIME8 OR $%' IN AN UNINHA-ITED PLACE8 OR $7'-Y A -AND8 HENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAYFACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

6/16

HENEVER MORE THAN THREE ARMEDMALEFACTORS SHALL HAVE ACTED TOGETHER IN THE

COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE8 IT SHALL -E DEEMED TOHAVE -EEN COMMITTED -Y A -AND.

These # circumstances may be considered separately when theirelements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently,revealing a greater degree of perversity.

Nig'ttim!( unin'a)it!* +,ac! -r )an* i aggravating.1.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

7/16

4f there are & armed men, aid of armed men- is absorbed byemployment of a band- Aid of armed men- includes armed women-

P)r. 0. , THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.

Art. 1&. 0ommission of another crime during service of penaltyimposed for another offense; 6enalty. Cesides the provisions of8ule ' of Article (", any person who shall commit a felony afterhaving been convicted by final =udgment, before beginning to

serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punishedby the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for thenew felony.

Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who isnot a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventyyears if he shall have already served out his original sentence, orwhen he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless byreason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not beworthy of such clemency.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,shall have been previously convicted by final =udgment of anothercrime embraced in the same title of the 860.

REQUISITES5a. That the offender is on trial for an offense;b. That he was previously convicted by final =udgment

of another crime;c. That both the first and the second offenses are

embraced in the same title of the 0ode;d. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

8/16

circumstance. consideration in fixing thepenalty to be imposedupon the accused.

FOUR FORMS OR REPETITION51. RECIDIVISM

%. REITERACTION OR HA-ITUALITY

7. MULTI,RECIDIVISM OR HA-ITUAL

DELINQUENCYB when a person, within a period of 1* years from the

date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious orless serious physical in=uries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification,is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. 4nhabitual delin/uency, the offender is either a recidivist or one whohas been previously punished for two or more offenses$habituality%. e shall suffer an additional penalty for being ahabitual delin/uent.

4. QUASI,RECIDIVISMB Any person who shall commit a felony after having

been convicted by final =udgment, before beginning to serve suchsentence or while serving the same, shall be punished by themaximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the newfelony.

Peope !. G)or)") $100'Facts: 2arivel, upon instruction of 8owena $commonBlaw

wife of the accused% went to the house of Daorana and saw thecouple lying down. 2arivel was ased to come it and 8owenastood up to urinate. Daorana covered her mouth and pointed ahunting nife to her nec and raped her. The second incident ofrape occurred while 2arivel was sleeping in the sala with herbrother and sister. 2arivel did not shout because she was afraid ofthe accused who was a prisoner and had already illed somebody.

Held: The " 4nformation alleged that both instances ofrape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of /uasiBrecidivism. The T0 made no express ruling that the appellant wasa /uasiBrecidivist, and rightly so. uring the trial, the prosecutionmanifested that appellant had been convicted by the 8T0 and wasserving sentence for the crime of homicide. owever, theprosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the recordof appellantEs previous conviction. QuasiBrecidivism, lie

recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of acertified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The fact thatappellant was an inmate of A6709K does not prove that final

=udgment had been rendered against him.

Peope !. V#)p)"*o $100'Facts:The accused was charged before the 8T0 with the

crimes of murder and of attempted homicide.Held: The court does not agree that reiteracion or

habituality should be appreciated in this case. The appellant wasfound by the trial court to have committed offenses prior to andafter the incident of Jan. 1&, 1)). 4n habituality, it is essentialthat the offender be previously punished, that is, he has servedthe sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, orprovides for an e/ual or greater penalty than that attached by lawto the second offense, or for two or ore offenses, in which the lawattaches a lighter penalty. ere, the records do not disclose thatthe appellant has been previously punished by an offense towhich the law attaches an e/ual or greater or penalty or for twoor more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Peope !. C)>)r) $%&&&'Facts:Accused 0a=ara raped 1(Byear old 2arita in front

of his commonBlaw wife who is the halfBsister of the victim and histwo small children. The trial court convicted him as charged andsentenced him to death.

Held: The records show that the crime was aggravatedby reiteracion under Art. 1&, par. 1*, of The 8evised 6enal 0ode,the accused having been convicted of frustrated murder in 1)'and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegalpossession of firearms and murder sometime in 1)+) where hissentences were later commuted to imprisonment for "# years anda fine of 6"**,***.**. e was granted conditional pardon by the

6resident of the 6hilippines on + !ovember 1))1. 8eiteracion ohabituality under Art. 1&, par. 1*, herein cited, is present whenthe accused has been previously punished for an offense to whicthe law attaches an e/ual or greater penalty than that attachedby law to the second offense or for two or more offenses to whichit attaches a lighter penalty. As already discussed, herein accusedcan be convicted only of simple rape and the imposable penaltytherefor is reclusion perpetua.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

9/16

". An act manifestly indicating that theculprit has clung to his determination; and

B )r $%&&%'

Facts:. 4n a previous incident, Aplacador had stabbed2ondi=ar, his father in law on the nee. A month after, 2ondii=astabbed and haced his sonBinBlaw with the use of a sharp andpointed bolo which resulted to his death.

Held: There was no evident premeditation. For thecircumstance of evident premeditation to be appreciated, theprosecution must present clear and positive evidence of thplanning and preparation undertaen by the offender prior to thcommission of the crime. @ettled is the rule that evidenpremeditation, lie any other circumstance that /ualifies a illingto murder, must be established beyond reasonable doubt aconclusively and indubitably as the illing itself. 4n the presencase, no evidence was presented by the prosecution as to whenand how appellant planned and prepared for the illing of thevictim. There is no showing of any notorious act evidencing determination to commit the crime which could prove appellantGscriminal intent.

Peope !. Torp#o $2(pr)'Facts:

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

10/16

illBfeeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient toestablish premeditated illing. ence, it would be erroneous todeclare that the illing of the victim was premeditated.

Peope !. -#2o $%&&7'Facts: ario, a blac belt in arate, entered an eatery,

seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual advances to herin the presence of her brother, 7duardo. 7duardo contacted hiscousin, Ciso an exBconvict and a nown toughie in the area, andrelated to him what ario had done to Teresita. 7duardo and 6io,and " others decided to confront ario. They positionedthemselves in the alley near the house of ario. ario arrived on

board a taxicab. The four assaulted ario. 7duardo held, with hisright hand, the wrist of ario and covered the mouth of ario withhis left hand. The " others held arioGs right hand and hair. 6iothen stabbed ario near the breast with a fan nife. 7duardostabbed ario and fled with his three companions from the scene.

Held: There was no evident premeditation. Theprosecution failed to prove that the four intended to ill ario andif they did intend to ill him, the prosecution failed to prove howthe malefactors intended to consummate the crime. 7xcept for thefact that the appellant and his three companions waited in analley for ario to return to his house, the prosecution failed toprove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his cohortsshowing that that they had clung to any plan to ill the victim.

P)r. 14. , THAT THE CRAFT8 FRAUD OR DISGUISE -EEMPLOYED.

CRAFT involves intellectual tricery and cunning on the part ofthe accused. 4t is employed as a scheme in the execution of thecrime.

e.x.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

11/16

Facts: The accused with " other men who are still atlarge, armed with firearms and stones and using face mass,entered the dwelling of the victim. They held the victim tight aswell as the wife, who was able to scratch the face of the masedman, as a result was able to identify the accused. !ot satisfiedwith the money given by the couple, the two unnown robbers hitthe victim with stone at the bac of his head and the accused didthe same to the wife which caused her death. The prosecutionargued that since the attac was by a robust man of ") years witha huge stone against an ageing defenseless human, abuse ofsuperior strength should aggravate the crime.

Held: The prosecution failed to prove that there was

indeed a notorious ine/uality between the ages, si>es andstrength of the antagonists and that these notorious advantageswere purposely sought for or used by the accused to achieve hisends.

Peope !. R(e)" $1004'Facts: 8uelan $"* yrs old% was hired by the spouses

8icardo and 8osa $( yrs old% to help them sell and deliver rice totheir customers. 9ne day, 8osa ased 8uelan to accompany her,in opening their store in the public maret; she also ordered himto bring a sac and an axe.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

12/16

this /ualifying or aggravating circumstance should be proven asfully as the crime itself in order to aggravate the liability orpenalty incurred by the culprit.

RULES REGARDING TREACHERYa. Applicable only to crimes against persons.b. 2eans, methods or forms need not insure

accomplishment of crime.c. The mode of attac must be consciously

adopted.

R 2ere suddenness of the attac is not enough to constitute

treachery. @uch method or form of attac must be deliberatelychosen by the accused.

ATTACKS SHON INTENTION TO ELIMITNATE RISK5a. Lictim asleepb. Lictim halfBawae or =ust awaenedc. Lictim grappling or being held.d. Attaced from behind

R There is treachery in illing a child because the weaness of thevictim due to his tender age results in the absence of any dangerto the accused.

ADDITIONAL RULES51.

Held: The claim that the challenging words of the victimprecluded the circumstance of treachery because it put him on higuard is untenable. The fact that the accused seemed to bpacified by the son of the victim made it clear that the victim hadno reason to expect an attac. As such the attac was sudden anunexpected, from behind and with the victim unarmed withou

any chance to defend himself against the initial assault, clearlyshow that treachery was present.

Peope !. Ver/?e+ $1004'Facts: A team of government agents of the 60

conducted a surveillance on a house reported to be the hideout oa gang of suspected robbers. The agents stopped a car comingout of the house. 4t was driven by Calane. Calane was prevailedupon into accompanying the agents into the house. Theproceeded to the house in & cars and when the 1st caapproached, they were met with heavy gunfire. A firefight ensued# of the agents were hit; one died and two were in=ured. The meninside the house later surrendered. Among them was Lerche>.

Held:The two re/uisites of treachery were not provenThe lawmen, nowing that they were dealing with a gang of banrobbers, were prepared to deal with any resistance that maypossibly be put up. Also, @gt. !orcio was illed during the gunbattle and not during the first volley of shots fired by the robbersThus, there is no showing that appellants deliberately anconsciously adopted their mode of attac. !either is there anyshowing that they intended to ambush the lawmen.

Peope !. Re"*)>e $%&&&'Facts:Kennie was a 1'Byear old deafBmute. 8enda=e, on

the other hand, was "# years old and in the prime of his strength8enda=e followed Kennie when the latter was on her way homealone.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

13/16

act on the part of the offended party; and $"% the offenderGsdeliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner ofexecution.

!o one has positively testified on how Kennie was illedbut the victimEs body shows the manner in which she wasattaced by her assailant. 4t elo/uently speas for itself. Thein=uries established the manner in which the illing was cruellycarried out with little or no ris to the assailant. The number ofstab wounds, most of which were inflicted at the bac of the child unarmed and alone shows the deliberateness, thesuddenness and the unexpectedness of the attac, which thusdeprived her of the opportunity to run or fight bac.

Peope !. U3))3 $%&&%'Facts: 5mayam and the victim, 2endo>a were living as

husband and wife in a shanty erected inside a compound ownedby Lelas/ue>. uring the coupleEs stay in the compound,Lelas/ue> would notice them fre/uently /uarelling and 2endo>aon occasions would run to Lelas/ue> for help for the beatingsinflicted on her by her husband. Lelas/ue> then noticed a foulodor emanating from the coupleEs shanty which he at first thoughtto be that of a poultry feed or kaning baboy.a was found inside. The trial court found 5mayam guilty ofmurder.

Held:The /ualifying circumstance of treachery was notestablished with concrete evidence. The circumstantial evidenceon record does not clearly show that there was any conscious anddeliberate effort on the part of the accused to adopt any particular

means, method or form of attac to ensure the commission of thecrime without affording the victim any means to defend herself.The conclusion that there was treachery can hardly be gleanedbecause the victim and 5mayam were inside their shanty and noone witnessed how the illing too place. !otably, the medicalfindings of the victimGs cadaver show, contusions on her arms andlegs, indicating that there may have been a /uarrel prior to thestabbing. This reasonably negates treachery.

Peope !. P#e*)* $%&&%'

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and suddenattac, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victimno chance to resist or to escape. came to 2ateoGs succor byembracing him and pacifying his aggressors, but accusedBappellants were unrelenting. 2ore importantly, 2ateo could nothave actually anticipated the sudden landing of a large concretestone on his head. The stone was thus treacherously struc.!either could the victim have been aware that Kito came upbeside him to stab his bac as persons were beating him fromevery direction. KitoGs act of stabbing the victim with a nife,inflicting a 1'Bcm deep wound shows deliberate intent of using aparticular means of attac. 0onsidering the location of the in=uriessustained by the victim and the absence of defense wounds,2ateo clearly had no chance to defend himself.

Peope !. D(3)*)< $%&&4'Facts: 6rudente with his friends including 2eliston

agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate the feast of @t.John. 9n their way home, there was heavy downpour so theydecided to tae a shelter at a store where " men, 1 of whom isumadag are having some drins. umadag offered 6rudente adrin of Tanduay but the latter refused then left. umadagfollowed 6rudented and stabbed the victim on his breast with anife which resulted to his death.

Held: As a general rule, a sudden attac by theassailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if suchmode of attac was deliberately adopted by him with the purposeof depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. Therule does not apply if the attac was not preconceived but merely

triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an act made by thevictim. 4n the present case, it is apparent that the attac was notpreconceived. 4t was triggered by the appellantGs anger becauseof the victimGs refusal to have a drin with the appellant and hicompanions.

P)r. 1;. , THAT MEANS -E EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES-ROUGHT A-OUT HICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURALEFFECTS OF THE ACT.

IGNOMINY it is a circumstance pertaining to the moral orderwhich adds disgrace ad oblo/uy to the material in=ury caused by

the crime.

R This A0 is applicable to crimes against chastity and persons.

R

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

14/16

committed in a manner that tends to mae its effect morehumiliating, thus adding to the victimGs moral suffering.

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

15/16

not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravatingcircumstance. !either can it be inferred from the mere fact thatthe victimEs dead body was dismembered.

Peope !. C)t#)" $%&&%'Facts:0atian repeatedly strie

8/9/2019 art14, rpc

16/16

contrary to the provisions of this Act are deemed amended, modifiedor repealed accordingly.

SECTION @. E33!ctivit5. ,This Act shall tae effect fifteen $1'% daysafter completion of its publication in two $"% newspapers of generalcirculation.

Peope !. -))))3 $%&&&'Facts: Accused who is maintaining a drug den fired an

unlicensed 2B1& rifle at the policemen who were about to entehis house to serve a search warrant.

Held:4f an unlicensed firearm is used in the commissionof any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegapossession of firearms. ence, if the Hother crimeH is murder ohomicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely anaggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. @ince direcassault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in thiscase, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession

of firearms.2oreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor o

the accused. 4n this case, the plain meaning of 8A +")&Gs simplelanguage is most favorable to herein appellant. Lerily, no otheinterpretation is =ustified, for the language of the new lawdemonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accusedAccordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of " separate offensesof illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attemptedhomicide. @ince the crime committed was direct assault and nohomicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot bedeemed an aggravating circumstance.