article 14 aggravating circumstances

CHAPTER 14: AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating circumstances are those which show greater perversity of the offender

hence they have the effect of imposing the maximum with that provided for by law.

May be distinguished in the following manner from mitigating circumstance

1. The list in Article 13 includes analogous circumstances showing

liberality of the law in favor of the accused in article 14, the list is exclusive

to curtail discretion of the judge to determine what other circumstances

may increase the penalty.

2. Mitigating circumstance may lower the penalty by degree in the

Immoral motive, while it may find support in evidence may not be

considered as it does not gall under any aggravating circumstance

enumerated in article 14 of the rpc.

4 kinds of aggravating circumstances -

1. generic circumstance which –

• have the effect of the penalty being imposed in the maximum

period. Noe that penalty prescribed in Book II of the cose is the

max imposable

• apply to all felonies

• can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

• prior to the amendment of the rules of criminal procedure,

qualifying circumstance not alleged in the Information but proved

may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance…but

when revised under Sec. 8, rule 110 – be specifically included in

the aggravating circumstance.

2. Qualifying circumstances

• Cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance

• Change the nature of the crime and the designation of the offense.

• Must be alleged in the information, otherwise it cannot be

considered against the offender as such because it will violate the

right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation

against him since qualifying circumstances changes the nature of

the offense. This is beside the fact that the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure new requires specification of qualifying

circumstances in the information.

• Must be proven as conclusively as the guilt of the offender

because in changes the nature of the offense with the

corresponding increase in the penalty. For instance, homicide is

penalized with reclusion temporal (20 years maximum). With one

qualifying circumstance, it becomes murder penalizd with

reclusion perpetua (20 years maximum) this the penalty is

doubled.

3. SPECIAL OR SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUSMTANCE WHICH APPLY TO A

PARTICULAR FELONY. They do not change the character of the offense

charges but.

4. INHERENT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE – which is an element of the

felony thus no longer considered against the offender in the determination

of the penalty (Art 62 no 2)

Where one of the aggravating circumstances has been used as a qualifying

circumstance, the others will be deemed generic. Since treachery has already been

used to qualify the crime as murder, the evident premeditation should be

considered as only a generic aggravating circumstance (People v Fabios October

1992)

Conspiracy is not aggravating, it is also not qualifying, it is mode or manner of

acquiring collective liability. “The act of one is the act of all.” The presence of

conspiracy cannot per se qualify the killing to murder.

of 22

Chapter 4: CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITES APPLICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO-

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his position

Greater perversity as shown in their personal circumstance;Means used to secure the commission of the crime

1. Offender is a public officer2. Must his influence,

ascendancy, and prestige which his office gives him as a means by which he commences the crime

RECKONING QUESTION: Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit a crime?

There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public position

Present when act done by offender is connected with the exercise of his official duty or function

Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office

“taking advantage of public position” – the public officer must use influence, prestige or ascendency which his office gives him as a means but which he realizes his purpose.

o When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official functions and does acts not connected with the duties of his office, he should be punished as a private individual without this aggravating circumstance (US v Dacuycuy)

o Not aggravating when it is an integral element of, or inherent in, the offense.

o Not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying police position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities

Greater perversity as shown by his lack of respect for public authorities

1. Public authority is engages in the exercise of his functions

2. He who is engaged in the exercise of the said functions is NOT the person against whom the crime is committed

3. The offender knows him to be a public authority

4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act. *essential*

Public authority - person in authority; a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws.

o Not applicable to a crime commited in the presence of an AGENT ONLY.

o Agent of a person in authority – any person while by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. (any persons who comes to the aid of persons in authority)

3. That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the

Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstance of the

1.) THERE SHOULD BE (proof of fact that there is ) DELIBERATE INTENT to INSULT OR DISREGARD with RESPECT DUE

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

*provided that there must be no provocation coming from the offended party.

of 22

respect due the offended party on the amount of his (a) rank, (b) age, (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling in the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation

offended party and the place of commission of the crime.

***

When all the four aggravating circumstances are present – they should be considered as one aggravating circumstance only.

TO THE OFFENDED party on the account of -----

RANK OF OFFENDED PARTY1.) There must be a

difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party or high social position or standing

It should be clearly demonstrated that the accused deliberately intended to act with insult or with disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank. That the accused was cognizant of the rank of the deceased police officer or that he articulated words against the victim.

Rank – a graded official standing or social position or station

o It is absorbed in the crime of direct assault since rank is an element thereof.

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITES APPLICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO -

3. That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on the amount of his (a) rank, (b) age, (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling in the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation

AGE OF OFFENDED PARTY1.) When the offended

person, by reason of age, is old enough to be the father of the offender.

Circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age.

When it comes to aggravating circumstances you do not take them in increasing the penalty when they are inherent in the commission of a crime.

Determine first what crime is committed before considering such circumstance.

o NOT aggravating in robbery with homicide because it is a crime against property

o Can’t be considered in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of victim

SEX OF OFFENDED PARTY1.) Refers to the female sex,

not the male sex. Absorbed in treachery When a person compels a woman to

go to his house against her will, the crime coercion with the aggravating circumstance of disrespect to sex is committed. (US v Quevengco)

Killing a female relative of the offended in retaliation (People v Dayug)

Direct assault upon a lady teacher.

o When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation – this being the condition of mind, he could not have been conscious that his act was done with disrespect to the offended party.

o When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender -

o When the condition of being a woman is indispensible in the commission of the crime – thus, in (a) parricide, (b) rape, (c) abduction or

of 22

(d) seductions, SEX is not aggravating.

Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of commission of the offense.

***

One’s dwelling place is a “sanctuary worthy of respect”

2.) THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

1.) Crime was committed in one’s dwelling

2.) offended party must not give provocation

Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort.INCLUDES:

a.) Dependenciesb.) The foot of the staircase

and enclosure under the house.

Even if provocation exists, that it was not immediately prior to the commission of the crime.

Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, the circumstance applies – it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house by the assailant’s own divisive means

Aggravating in abduction or illegal detention.

Even if the victim was just a lessee, bed-spacer or a boarder. NOT TRANSIENT.

In adultery, when committed in the dwelling of husband.

o If the following requisites of provocation are present then dwelling is not aggravating.1. Given by the owner of the

dwelling2. Sufficient3. Immediate to the commission of

the crime4. And close relation bet. Offender

and offendedo NOT AGGRAVATING when both

offender and offended parties are occupants of the same house.

o When it is inherent in the crime committed: Robbery by the use of force on things.

o When the it is a store/house at the same time.

o In adultery, when paramour also lives there.

of 22

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITES APPLICATIONNOT APPLICABLE TO

4. That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence or (2)obvious ungratefulness

Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways employed.

***

There are TWO aggravating circumstances in this paragraph

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

1.) Offended party had trusted the offender

2.) Offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party

3.) Abuse of confidence facilitated

A 9-month old child killed by an amah (househelp) is a grave abuse of confidence- the killer of the child is the domestic servant of the family and the deceased child’s amah

Inherent in some felonies: malversation, qualified theft, estafa by conversion or misappropriation.

Confidence between offender and offended must be immediate and personal

o The confidence must facilitate the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.

o Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating –because the victim could resist the commission of the crime.

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

1.) That the act must be manifest and clear with obvious ungratefulness

Where the accused killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially supported him.

Where accused had free access to the house of the victim who was very kind to him, his family and who helped him solve his problems.

o The mere fact, however, that the accused and the offended party live in the same house is not in itself enough to hold that there was present abuse of confidence where the house was not the property of the offended party.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief of 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.

Based on the greater perversity of offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected.

Requisite of par 5 as distinguished from paragraph 2 ( contempt of insult to public authorities)

The place of the commission of the felony (par 5), if it is in Malacanang palace or church, is aggravating, regardless of whether the state or official or religious functions are being held.

The mere presence alone of the Chief Executive (need not be in the palace) to constitute such aggravating circumstance.

^ and even if such public authority is not engaged in the discharge of his duties where the crime is committed.

BUT as regards to the place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be some performance of public functions.

Offender MUST have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.

o Cemeteries are not such a place, however respectable they may be, are not dedicated to the worship of God.1. In BOTH, the public authorities

are in the performance of their duties

UNDER PAR 5. UNDER PAR 2.

2. The public authorities who are in the performance of their duties MUST be in their office

Public authorities are performing their duties outside of their office.

3. Public authority

The public authority should

of 22

MAY be the offended party

not be the offended party

of 22

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITE APPLUCATION NOT APPLICABLE TO

6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and the means and ways employed

***

Can be considered separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist, revealing a greater degree of perversity

When nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating –

1.) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

2.) When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime of for the purpose of impunity

3.) When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

NIGHTTIME: the period beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. Sunset to Sunrise

By and itself, not an aggravating circumstance

It becomes so only when it is especially sought by the offender, or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure immunity from capture.

For the purpose of impunity – means to prevent the accused’s being recognized, or to secure himself against detection and punishment.

The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlight does not negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime

To be aggravating, the prosecution must show that the accused purposely sought to commit the crime at nighttime in order to facilitate the achievement of crime, prevent discovery, or evade capture.

MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION

o Not aggravating when crime began at daytime – when the crime was a result of a succession of acts which took place within the period of 2 hrs., commencing at 5 pm and ending at 7pm.

o When darkness of the night was merely incidental to the crime committed.

o NOCTURNITY is not aggravating where there is no evidence that the accused has purposely sought the cover of the darkness of the night to commit the crime; nor is there evidence that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime, aside from the fact that the scene of the crime was illuminated.

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE REQ.--- NIGHTTIME

Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime.

The offense must be committed in the darkness of the night.

UNINHABITED PLACE SOLITUDE MUST BE SOUGHT TO

BETTER ATTAIN THE CRIMINAL PURPOSE – It must appear that the accused sought solitude of the place where the crime was committed, in order to better attain his purpose.

The offenders must choose the place as an aid either(1) to an easy and

uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs.

(2) To insure concealment of the offense, that he might thereby be better secured

UNINHABITED PLACE: is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.

Should be determined, not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of its commission, there was reasonable possibility of receiving some help.

Aggravating where the felony was perpetrated in the open sea (no help nearby)

Occupants are the only house in the

o If offended party was casually encountered by the accused and the latter did not take advantage that it facilitates the commission of the crime.

o Although the house nearest to the dwelling of the victim was about a kilometer away, if the defendants did not select the place either to better attain their object without interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment.

of 22

against detection and punishment.

place

BY A BAND: What is a band? At least 4 malefactors (with at

least 1 who is armed) MUST act together in the

commission of the crime***EXPRESS CONSPIRACY

NOTE: All the armed men, at least 4 in number, must take direct part in the execution of the act constituting the crime (art 17, par 1 RPC)

BY A BAND: Abuse of superior strength and use of

firearms, absorbed in aggravating circumstance of “by a band”

“By a band” is inherent in brigandage “By a band” is aggravating in

robbery with homicide. Aggravating in crimes against

property or against persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason.

o If one of the four armed persons is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band. Connotes that he has no DIRECT PARTICIPATION in the perpetration thereof.

o When nighttime, uninhabited place or by a band did not facilitate the commission of the crime, was not especially sought for or was not taken advantaged of: NOT AGGRAVATING

o When casual meeting turned into heated argumentation and anger and did not afford the offenders any advantage – not aggravating

o Not applicable to crimes of chastity

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

Has reference to the time of the commission of the crime.

The debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.

1.) There be a state of calamity of epidemic or misfortune

2.) The offender MUST take advantage of the calamity or misfortune in committing the crime.

Chaotic condition as an aggravating circumstance: distress similar to calamity, shipwreck, earthquake or epidemic

o Hence, chaotic condition after liberation is not included in this paragraph.

o BUT in the case of People v Penjan, it was considered chaotic condition from the liberation of San Pablo.

PAR 7 PAR 12

The crime is committed ON THE OCCASION of a calamity or misfortune

The crime is committed BY MEANS OF ANY such acts involving great waste or ruin.

8. that the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity.

Based on the means and ways of committing the crime

1.) That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly

2.) That the accused availed himself of their aid or relief upon them when the crime was committed.

RULE FOR APPLICATION: The casual presence of armed men

near the place where the crime was committed DOES NOT CONSTITUTE an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused DID NOT avail himself of their AID or RELY upon them to commit the crime.

Aid of armed men is absorbed by “employment of band” - NOTE: if there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in

Not aggravating when:o Both the attacked and the attacking

party were EQUALLY ARMED.o Accused as well as those who

cooperated with him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and the same purpose for that would have constituted -> conspiracy to commit a crime.

WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN ( PR 8)

BY A BAND (PAR 6.)

of 22

employment of a band. If there are 3 armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.

AID OF ARMED MEN = includes ARMED WOMEN.

Is present even if one of the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. DID NOT

INITIATE, JUST AIDED PRINCIPAL PERPETRATOR

No required number of malefactors

Requires more than 3 malefactors who shall have acted together in the commission of an offense ALL

PRINCIPALS

of 22

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITES APPLICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO

9. That the accused is a RECIDIVIST

Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crimes

***

Who 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 for another crime embraced in the same title of the code. There must be two convictions.

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

2.) That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;

3.) That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same code.

4.) That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

***

Controlling: time of the trial; not the time of the commission of the crime.

Time between first and 2nd offense – no prescription period for lapse of time.

‘At the time of his trial for one crime’ – It is meant to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.

“final judgment ” – executory; meaning 15 days have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict appealing the conviction Already final when offender

started serving sentence He expressly waived hi right to

appeal He applied for probation. (he is

effectively waiving his motion for reconsideration and appeal)

“must be embraced in the same title code” – robbery and theft are embraced in title ten, referring to crimes against property.

Homicide and physical injuries are embraced in Title Eight, referring to crimes against persons.

There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two felonies is more than 10 years.

PARDON does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but AMNESTY extinguishes the penalty and its effects

o No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense involved in the prior conviction.

o When one offense is punishable by an ordinance or special law and the other by the Revised Penal Code, the two offenses are not embraced in the same title of the Code.

RECIDIVISM REITERACION

1. Requires previous conviction with final judgment

2. The offense falls under the same title

3. No requirement as to penalty attached

1.. Requires service of sentence

2. The offense do not need to fall under the same title

3. Equal or greater penalty with that accused is facing now or must be at least 2.

10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Same as that of recidivism, the greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to crimes.

***

despite the previous punishment, the offender did not learn his lesson.

1. That the accused is ON TRIAL for an offense;

2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and

3. That he is convicted of the new offense.

Reitaracion or habituality – it is essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has served sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or provides for an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law for the second offense, or for two or more offense, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty.

Hence, even if the accused served the penalty the prision mayor in its minimum period and is not convicted of an offense for which the penalty of

o REITARACION or habituality not always aggravating - if, as a result of taking this circumstance into acct, the penalty for the crime of murder would be death and the offenses for which the offender has been previously convicted are against property and not directly against persons, the court should exercise its discretion in favor of the accused by not taking this aggravating

of 22

prision mayor max is imposed, there is still habituality, PROVIDED that the penalty attached to the 2 offenses is prision mayor in its full extent.

circumstance into account.

of 22

RECIDIVISM REITERACION/ HABITUALITY HABITUAL DELINQUENCY QUASI-DELINQUENCY

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment for another crime embraced in the same title of the code

That the offender has been previously punished for 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.

The rationale here is that despite the previous punishment, offender did not learn his reason. Reason: despite the previous punishment, the offender did not learn his lesson.

Habitual Delinquency special aggravating circumstance and unlike the other kinds of aggravating circumstance which merely increases the penalty for offense committed, habitual delinquent has its own penalty which escalates with the increase in the number of conviction.

QUASI RECIDIVISM a special aggravating circumstance which may not be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.The offender has been previously convicted by final judgment and before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same committed a felony.

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

2.) That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;

3.) That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same code.

4.) That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

1) That the accused is ON TRIAL for an offense;

2) That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and

3) That he is convicted of the new offense.

1) A person is considered a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of:(FRETSEL) = Falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injury

•If it falls under the same title - recidivism. Where does it fall?

ART 160 RPC - commission of another crime during the service of penalty imposed for another previous offense; besides the prov of rule 5 of article 62, any persons 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.

The thing is recidivism merely imposes maximum penalty of the period imposed

However, QR – prescribes that penalty would be imposed at the maximum period. Thus effectuates -> the penalty of recidivism because it is absorbed. Same ra sa effect sa recidivism. Or does not even matter because (unsa man imo idungag) nga ang maximum ra man gihapon ang i-impose. Misnomer ra siya.

Kay if imo ithink ang purpose sa aggravating circumstance- increase the penalty but in truth- it can only impose the maximum period PRESCRIBED by law.

Quasi-recidivism is penalized in addition to habitual delinquency because e of the opening phrase in article 160 thus: “besides the provisions of rule 5 of article 52.” The effect is to penalize the convict with the maximum period of the new felony committee plus the penalty for the

When he is a rebel and then he killed a lot of people before and then he is convicted now with homicide ---- not the same. For the reason that it was inherent in his crime of rebellion.

“final judgment” – executory; meaning 15 days have elapsed from its promulgation without the convict appealing the conviction

• Already final when offender started serving sentence

• He expressly waived hi right to appeal

• He applied for probation. (he is effectively waiving his motion for reconsideration and appeal)

Recidivism cannot be appreciated where the prosecution failed to present a certified true copies of conviction in the other case since the same is not cured by the failure of the accused to object such lack of presentation.

RECIDIVISM REITERACION RECIDIVISM HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

1. Requires previous conviction with final judgment

2. The offense falls under the same title

3. NO requirement required to penalty attached

1. Requires service of sentence

2. Not required to be under the same title

3. Equal or greater penalty as compared to what the accused is facing now or if lighter, there must be at least 2 offenses.

1.2nd conviction is enough

2.Requires the crime to be under the same title

3.Does not prescribe4.Generic

aggravating which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

1. 3rd conviction is necessary

2. Crimes are specific

3. When the next crime committed happened after the reglamentary period – cannot be considered.

4. Special must be considered, additional penalty every crime committed back then.

of 22

Recidivism is an affirmative allegation whenver alleged in the information and when the accused enters a plea of not guilty to such issues not only as to his guilt or innocence but also to the presence or absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged.

original conviction plus the penalty for the habitual delinquency. 4 counts of homicide - award for previous crimes

Penalty: habitual delinquency award max of 30 years and quasi recidivism (max) – deads.

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITES APPLICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward of promise.

Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself.

1. Presupposes 2 or more offenders/principals• Principal by

inducement/offeror• Principal by

participation/acceptor

2. Price, reward or promise must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.

If the price or reward or promise is alleged in the information as a qualifying aggravating circumstance, it shall be considered against all the accused, it being an element of the crime of murder.

o If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after the crime had been committed as an expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by other accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the

o Without reward in the execution is not considered

12. 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 waste and ruin.

Reference to means and ways employed

REFER TO PARAGRAPH 7 for comparison.

1. Used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose.

When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance

o Not aggravating or considered when death is just a result of another crime like arson.

By means of fire WHEN USED AS A MEANS TO KILL

ANOTHER PERSON, the crime is murder.

in order to constitute murder, there should be an actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end..

o Hence, if the purpose of the explosion, inundation or fire is to kill a predetermined person, the crime committed is murder. Once any of these circumstances is alleged in the information to qualify the offense, it should not be considered as generic aggravating circumstance, because it is am integral element of the offense already

***

NOTE: Each of the circumstances of fire, explosion, and derailment of locomotive may be a part of the definition of a particular crime, such as, arson (art 320), crime involving

By means of explosion If there is intent to kill and explosion is used by the offender to accomplish his criminal purpose, it is murder if the victim dies in consequence thereof.

Under article 330, which defines and penalizes the crime of damage to means of communication, derailment

of 22

by means of derailment locomotive

of cars, collision or accident must result from damage to a railway, telegraph or telephone lines.

BUT this is without prejudice to the criminal liability for other consequences of criminal act.

destruction (art 324) and damages and obstruction to means of communication (art 330).

In these cases, they do not serve to increase the penalty, because they are already included by the law in defining the crimes. Thus, they should not be considered as aggravating circumstance and shall not be taken into consideration in increasing the penalty.

of 22

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITE APPLICATIONNOT APPLICABLE WHEN

13. that the act be committed with evident premeditation“GIPAMINSARAN”

Has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it.

***

ESSENTIAL that the execution of the criminal act MUST be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at calm judgment.

THUS, evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent of any proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out.

THE PREMEDITATION must be evident, not merely suspected.

1.) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime

2.) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination;

3.) A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

SUFFICIENT LAPSE OF TIME – the offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what he planned to doo, an interval long enough for his conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme.

------- notwithstanding, the offender still committed the crime which made it aggravating because of such stubborn adherence to the commission of felony.

The date and time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse of time (3rd requisite) is computed from that date and time.

2 nd requisite is necessary which must be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and determination must be plain and have been adopted after mature consideration on the part of the persons who conceived and resolved upon the perpetration of the crime.

After the offenders had determined (conceived) to commit the crime, they manifestly indicated that they clung to their determination ----o When the crime was carefully

planned by the offenderso when offenders previously

prepared the means which they considered adequate to carry it out.

o When the defendant made repeated statements that the hour of reckoning of the victim would arrive and armed themselves with deadly weapon.

What is sufficient lapse of time?o Evident premeditation was held

attendant where the accused had had three day’s time to meditate upon the crime w/c he intended to commit, and was not prompted by impulse of the moment. (People v Lasafin)

o Three hours or less considered sufficient lapse of time.

Evident premeditation and PRICE or REWARD can COEXIST. – may be taken into consideration independently of the fact that premeditation has already been considered, inasmuch as there exists no compatibility between these two

o Mere threats w/out the second element does not show evident premeditation: A threat to kill, unsupported by

other evidence which would disclose the true criminal state of mind of the accused, will only be construed as a casual remark naturally emanating from a felling of rancor and not a resolution of character involved in evident premeditation.

o Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof of evident premeditation. A nursed grudge/resentment –

not a conclusive proof of evident premeditation.

o CONSPIRACY generally presupposed premeditation – where conspiracy is directly established, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted.

o BUT WHEN CONSPIRACY is only implied, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched and the time which had elapsed before the commission of crime.

o Premeditation is ABSORBED by reward or promise, sometimes. -> applicable only to the inductor. The mere fact that another executed the act on the promise of reward does not necessarily mean that he had sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of his act.

o When victim is different from that intended premeditation is not aggravating.

of 22

13. that the act be committed with evident premeditation“GIPAMINSARAN”

circumstances, because if it is certain that as a general rule: price or reward implies premeditation, it is no less certain that the latter may be present without the former.

For premeditation to exist: It is not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular person.

1. The criminal intent w/c was carried out was to kill the first two persons whom the accused should meet @ the place where he intended to commit the crime. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION WAS CONSIDERED (Manalinde)

2. After careful thought and meditation, the accused decided to kill, whatever individual he should meet from the town where his son got the sickness of cholera. Acted on impulse and vengeance considerably, Perpetrated the crime with premeditation. (Zalsos)

3. A general attack upon a village having been premeditated and planned, the killing of any individual during the attack is attended by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. (Rodriguez)

Evident premeditation while inherent in robbery, may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the premeditation included the killing of the victim.

REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF THE RULING:

When the offender decided to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.

But if the offender premeditated on the killing of any person like Manalinde who decided to kill the first 2 persons he would meet – is proper to consider against the offender the aggravating circumstance because whoever it is he killed was contemplated in his premeditation.

And where the victim belonged to the class designated by the accused, although the victim was not previously determined, premeditation is aggravating.

In the case of Zalsos, the victim belonged to the class which was any “persons of Macabebe” to whom he attributed with cholera epidemic in his barrio.

14. That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed

Reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime.

CRAFT1.) involves intellectual trickery

and cunning on the part of the accused

2.) Resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of criminal

Where appellant deceived the victim into coming to her apartment under the pretext of accompanying the victim to the bank, and luring her to the 3rd floor of the apartment to

o Not an aggravating circumstance where craft partakes of an element of an offense, the same may not be appreciated independently for the purpose of aggravation.

of 22

***

This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental rather than the physical means to which the criminal resorts to carry out his design.

design. Employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime.

which he committed the crime. There is craft where accused lured

victim out of the house to kill him. Pretension whereby intent to do such

a crime would not arouse suspicion from the offended party.

Where four men determined to kill a man faraway, invited him to go mountain climbing and killed him there.

o Not established when the evidence shows that the accused and his companions, did not plan to camouflage their hostile intentions ate the incipiency of the attack. (People v. Cunanan)

o But craft is NOT attendant where the unlawful scheme could have been carried out just the same even without the pretense.

FRAUD1.) Insidious words and

machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design.

Where the defendants induced their victims to give up their arms upon a promise that no harm be done to them (US v Abelinde), AND when the latter gave up their arms, the former killed them.

To enter the house of Pedro, one of the accused shouted they wanted to buy cigarettes, which induced the owner to open backdoor for them, and one of them said they wanted to drink water. Once inside, they committed robbery with rape. FRAUD is aggravating.

THERE IS HAIRLINE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRAFT AND FRAUD. There is craft or fraud when by trickery, accused gain entrance in victim’s house. Pretending to have pacific intentions, gained entrance and consent from victim to which facilitated commission of crime.

CRAFT FRAUD

The act of the accused done in order NOT to arouse suspicion from the victim

When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations

DISGUISE1.) Resorting to any devise to

conceal identity

When the defendant covered his face with handkerchief before committing the crime that he should not be recognized, disguise is present.

o That even though he assumed that masquerade as a disguise, he was readily recognizable because his face could easily be seen together with his identifying feature, disguise is not aggravating.

15. that (1) advantage be taken of superior strength or (2) means be employed to weaken the defense

***Keyword: advantage

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTHIntentional use of superior strength

1.) Where there is excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to person attacked.a. When there is a

NOTORIOUS INEQUALITY of forces between aggressor and the victim (age, size and strength)

2.) Numerical superiority3.) Offender uses a powerful

weapon which is out of proportion to defense.

THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THAT THE ACCUSED were physically stronger and that they abused such superiority.

Where the victim who died was an innocent tender baby and the others were barely 5 and 12 years old.

When deceased was defenseless and under the influence of liquor, a clear case of superiority is present.

Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman with a weapon (which his sex and the weapon used afforded him in the commission of crime)

ABUSE OF STRENGTH by NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY:

o When offenders may or might have superior strength, but they do not or did not take advantage of it.

o When one attacks another with passion and obfuscation

o Does not apply when a quarrel unexpectedly arose and the fatal blow was struck at a time when the aggressor was brawling with the victim.

o Not applicable when the attack was made on the victim alternately.

o No abuse of superior strength in parricide against wife.

o The mere fact of there being superiority of numbers is not

of 22

o Unarmed victim was attacked by 3 men and all of them with weapons.

o Assailants were 4 in number and were armed with bladed instruments. The deceased was alone, unarmed and taken by surprise.

o Jurisprudence – 4 men and 1 defenseless victim, w/out treachery, would constitute advantage of superior strength (people v garcia)

When weapon used is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.

Aggravating in COERCION and FORCIBLE ABDUCTION when greatly in excess of that which is required to commit the offense.

Other crimes – illegal detention by 6 men , in robbery with rape committed by 4 men, in robbery with homicide by 3 mean.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ABSORBING BAND - cuadrilla . Band and abuse have the same essence which is the utilization of combined strength of the assailants.

sufficient to bring case within aggravating circumstance.

o No abuse of superior strength when one acted as principal and the other two as accomplices – inconsistent because it should be 3 men cooperated together in some way designed to weaken the defense.

o WHEN THERE IS TREACHERY – superior strength is absorbed.

BY A BAND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

Cuadrilla –1.) Atleast 4

malefactors and

2.) All of them are armed.

***The number of aggressors and the fact that they are armed

Gravamen is the taking advantage by the culprits of their collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victim or victims.

***Relative physical might vis-à-vis the offended party

MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE Exists when the offender, who had

the intention to kill the victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially weakening the resisting power of victim.

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR PERSONS AND PROPERTY

o MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE ABSORBED IN TREACHERY

of 22

CIRCUMSTANCE BASIS REQUISITEAPPLICATION NOT APPLICABLE TO

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

Reference to the means and ways employed in the commission of the crime

MEANING OF 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 arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Requisite:1.) That at the time of the

attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself

2.) That the offender consciously adopted that particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.

RULES REGARDING TREACHERY –1.) Applicable only to crimes against

person2.) Means, methods or forms need not

insure accomplishment of crime3.) The mode of attack MUST be

consciously adopted.

The treacherous character of the means employed in the aggression does not depend upon the result thereof but upon the means itself, in connection with aggressor’s purpose in employing it.

The accuse maust make preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible for the person attacked to defend himself.

The characteristic and unmistakable manifestation of treachery is the deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from behind, w/out any warning and w/out giving him an opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault.

Attacks showing eliminating risk –

a.) Victim asleepb.) Victim half-awake or just

awakenedc.) Victim grappling or being heldd.) Attacked from behind

a. With a firearmb. With a bladed weaponc. Other modes of armed

attack There is treachery in killing a child. Treachery may exist even if the

attack is made face-to-face:1. When it was not preceded

by a dispute2. And offended party was

o CANNOT BE PRESUMED - the suddenness of attack, does not suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, as long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless postion was accidental.

o When there is NO witness to such crime

o Neither was there treachery where the attack was frontal, indicating that the victim was not totally w/out opportunity to defend himself, when the surrounding circumstance was acted upon impulse.

o Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to constitute treachery. It must be deliberately chosen by the accused.

o Where the meeting between the accused and the victim is casual and the attack impulsively done, there is no treachery. – the reason being that the accused could not have made the preparation for the attack, the meeting between him and the deceased being casual, and the means, method and form of attack could not have been thought by the accused, because the attack was impulsively done.

o NO TREACHERY WHEN the victim was already defending himself when he was attakced by the accused.

o Mere sudden and unexpected attack does no necessarily not give rise to treachery

o No treachery where the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare.

o Also when the attack was preceded by a warning. CALLING ATTENTION NOT NECESSARILY A WARNING.

Treachery – means, methods or forms of attack are employed by the offender to make it impossible or hard for the offended party to put up any sort of resistance

Abuse of superior strength – does not employ means, methods or forms of attack; he only takes advantage of his superior strength

Means employed to weaken the defense – like in treachery, but the means employed ONLY MATERIALLY weakens the resisting power of the offended party.

In relation to other circumstances -

Absorbed Inherent Not absorbed

Abuse of superstrength

Aid of armed men and by a bandMeans to weaken the defensenighttime

of 22

unable to prepare himself for his defense.

Summary of rules:1. When the aggression is

continuous, treachery must be present at the beginning of the assault

2. When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given.

In treachery, it makes no difference WON the victim was the same person whom the accused intended to kill – because it still rendered victim impossible to defend himself.

Inherent in murder by poisoning

o No treachery when preceded with a heated discussion.

o ATTACK FROM BEHIND may not necessarily be alevosia – it must be sudden and consciously adopted also

o Cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation

Age and sex

Dwelling

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add IGNOMINY to the natural effects of the act

Reference to the means employed.

IGNOMINY – a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime

1) the means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame.

Applicable to crime committed against chastity

When before victim was killed, he was forced to kneel in front of his house with the servants in a line before him.

Where a woman was raped in the presence of her husband

Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide

18. that the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

Reference to the means and ways employed to commit a crime.

***Reason for aggravation: one who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for their personal safety shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity.

Unlawful entry – when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

1.) To effect entrance, not for escape

Rape committed in a house after an entry through the window.

Also when the offender went into the victim’s room through the window.

o BUT unlawful entry is one of the ways of committing robbery with force upon things under art 299 and art 302 of the code. Inherently in this kind of robbery.

o Generic aggravating – when not in the information, not considered.

o Not aggravating in the trespass to dwelling.

19. that as a means to the commission of a


1.) Breaking of a part of the building

2.) To effect entrance only

Under Rule 113, section 22 (revised rules of criminal procedure) – an officer, in order to make an arrest,

of 22

crime, a wall, roof, floor or window be broken.

***

SC called it the aggravating circumstance of forcible entry

3.) Utilized in the commission of the crime

either by virtue of a warran or without a warrant, as provided in sec 5 may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if he is Refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose.

20. that the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age or (2) by means of motor vehicles, airships or similar means


1.) Asking the minor to do the crime for the principal because of their perceived innocence and immunity from being criminally charged.

***

2 different aggravating circumstance in paragraph 20.

1.) tends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by pro criminals to avail themselves od minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility

2.) intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.

BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLE –

1.) when used to facilitate the commission of the crim

NOTE: if the motor vehicle was used only in facilitating the escape, it should not be aggravating.

Aggravating where the accused use a motor vehicle to insure the success of their nefarious enterprise

Also referring to motorized vehicle or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile, airplane.

o ESTAFA, cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle

o

21. cruelty Reference to the means and ways employed to commit a crime.

1.) That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing another wrong

2.) When the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain by

3.) That the accused enjoyed and was delighted in making his victim suffer

CRUELTY – when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

Refers to physical suffering of victim purposely intended by offender

Considered in extracting victim’s eye and stuffing his mouth with mud

Or burning mouth of child in murder

o Another wrong is not necessary for its commission

o Cannot be presumedo Plurality of wounds alone does not

show crueltyo No cruelty when another wrong

done was after the victim died.

IGNOMINY CRUELTYRapes, robbery and other forms of cruelties are aggravating circumstances of ignominy and cruelty in treason.

INVOLVES MORAL SUFFERING

REFERS TO PHYSICAL SUFFERING

of 22

article 14 aggravating circumstances

Documents

generic circumstance

analogous circumstances

qualifying circumstancescannot

penalty art

years maximum

mitigating circumstance1

mitigating circumstancechange

offense charges