AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating Circumstances = are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve
to increase the penalty without, without however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided
by law for the offense.

Basis of Aggravating Circumstances = They are based on the greater perversity of the offender
manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
1. The motivating power itself;
2. The place of commission;
3. The means and ways employed;
4. The time, or
5. The personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.

Four kinds of Aggravating Circumstances:

1. Generic = Those can generally apply to all crimes. (dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism)
In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraph numbers 1,2,3 (dwelling), 4,5,6,9,10,14,18,19
and 20, except “by means of motor vehicle” are generic aggravating circumstances.
2. Specific = those that apply only to particular crimes. (Ignominy in crimes against chastity or
cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons).
In Article 14, the circumstance in paragraphs No. 3 (except dwelling), 15,16,17 and 21 are
specific aggravating circumstances.
3. Qualifying = those that change the nature of the crime. (alevosia or treachery, or evident
premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder)
Article 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of
person to murder.
4. Inherent = those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. (Article 62,
paragraph 2)
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage.

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance distinguished from Generic Aggravating Circumstance

1. The effect of a generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by any mitigating circumstance,
is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the maximum
period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that of a qualifying
circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name but also to place
the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty other than that
specially prescribed by law for said crime.
2. A Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; A
generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.
3. A Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance to be such must be alleged in the information. If it is
not alleged, it is a generic aggravating circumstance only.

Generic Aggravating Circumstances, even if not alleged in the information, may be proved over the
objection of the defense. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance, must be alleged in the information
because it is an integral part of the offense.
Where, in an information for simple theft, the Qualifying Circumstance of Grave Abuse of
Confidence has not been alleged, said circumstance cannot qualify the crime committed but must be
regarded only as a Generic Aggravating Circumstance.

If not alleged in the information, treachery is only Generic Aggravating Circumstance in the crime of
homicide.

Aggravating Circumstances which do not have the effect of increasing the penalty:
1. Aggravating Circumstances shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty (Article 62, paragraph 1) in the following cases:
a. Which in themselves constitute a crime especially punishable by law

Example: “That the crime be committed by means of fire, xxxx, explosion” is in itself
a crime of arson (article 321) or crime involving destruction (Article 324). It is not
to be considered to increase the penalty for the crime of arson or for the crime
involving destruction.

b. Which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
thereof

Example: “that the act xxxx be committed in the dwelling of the offended party”, or
“that the crime be committed after an unlawful entry”, or “that as a means to the
commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken” is included by
Article 299 in defining robbery in an inhabited house. It shall not to be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty for that kind of robbery.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any Aggravating Circumstance inherent ion the
crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

Examples:
a. Evident premeditation is inherent in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and
concubinage.
b. Taking advantage of public position is inherent in crimes where the offenders, who
are public officers, committed the crime in the exercise of their functions, such as in
bribery, malversation, etc.

Aggravating circumstances which arises in the following cases shall only serve to aggravate
the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances
are attendant:
a. From the moral attributes of the offender
b. From his private relations with the offended party
c. From any personal cause.

Examples:
 1. A, with evident premeditation, gave B Php 1,000.00 to kill C. B immediately killed C. Evident
premeditation is an aggravating circumstance which arises from the moral attribute of A. it
shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A
2. A, stepson of B, killed the latter. C, knowing that A killed B without justification, buried the
dead body of B to prevent the discovery of the crime. The private relation of A with B shall
serve to aggravate the liability of C, the accessory.
3. A, who was previously convicted by final judgment of theft and served sentence therefor,
and B committed robbery. Both were prosecuted and found guilty after trial. Upon his
conviction for robbery, A was a recidivist. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance which
arises from personal cause. It shall serve to aggravate only the liability of A, but not that of
B.

The circumstances which consist the following cases shall serve to aggravate the liability of those
persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.:
1. In the material execution of the act
2. In the means employed to accomplish it.
Illustrations:
1. In his house, A ordered B to kill C. A and B did not talk about the manner C would be killed.
B left the house of A and looked for C. B found C and killed the latter with treachery. The
aggravating circumstance of treachery consists in the material execution of the act. Since A
had no knowledge of it, treachery shall only aggravate the liability of B.
2. A ordered B and C to kill D, instructing them to wait until nighttime so that the crime could
be committed with impunity. B and C killed D at nighttime. Although A did not take direct
part in the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime shall also
aggravate his liability, because he had knowledge of it at the time of the execution of the act
by B and C.

Aggravating Circumstance should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the
penalty.

Article 14. Aggravating Circumstances – The following are aggravating circumstances:

Paragraph 1 of 21 – That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. APP
(Advantage of Public Position)

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
circumstance of the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of the crime.

This aggravating circumstances is applicable only when the offender is a public officer who takes
advantage of his public position.

“Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position” = means the public officer used the
influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means which he realizes his
purpose. The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry, “Did the accused abuse his office in
order to commit the crime?”
Examples:
1. The accused took advantage of his public position. He could not have maltreated the victim
if he was not a policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell
where the victim was confined. The prisoner was under his custody.
2. There is abuse of public position where a police officer in the course of investigation of a
charge against him for a grave threats shot the complainant in a treacherous manner.
3. Advantage of public position is present where the accused used their authority as members
of the police and constabulary to disarm the victim before shooting him.

In the case of a congressman who offered resistance to his captor upon being surprised in a
gambling house, this aggravating circumstance is not present. The reason is that the Congressman
did not take advantage on the influence or reputation of his office.

This aggravating circumstances is present when a councilor collects fines and misappropriates
them.

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

A policeman in uniform who abducted a girl by availing himself of his position, or the chief of police
who, during the search of a boat by means of intimidation, obtained money from the crew, or a
special agent of the military police who committed robber with homicide with the gun which he had
been authorized to carry as a peace officer, committed the crime by taking advantage of his public
position.

Although he was off duty and there is evidence that he was in civilian clothes at the time, it is
nonetheless obvious that knowing that the offended party was aware of his being a policeman, and
sought to impose, illegally, his authority as such, the penalty provided by law must be meted
(provided, given, punishment) out.

But if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is proven that he has failed in his duties as such public
officer, this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of his penalty.

Advantage to be taken by the offender of his public position is an integral element of the crime of
malversation under Article 217, or in falsification of public documents, inherent in the case of
accessories under Article 19, paragraph 3 and in crimes committed by public officers, Articles 204
to 245.

Advantage to be taken by the offender of his public position or that he uses his “influence, prestige
or ascendancy “which his office given him is not aggravating if accused could have perpetrated the
crime without occupying police position.

Paragraph 2 of 21 – That the crime be committed in contempt or of insult to the public authorities.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the
public authorities.
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
2. That he who is thus engaged in 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 (public authority) has not prevented the offender from committing the crime.
Examples:
A and B are quarrelling on a street and the municipal mayor, upon passing by, attempts to separate
them to stop the quarrel. Notwithstanding the intervention and the presence of the mayor, A and B
continued to quarrel until A succeeds in killing B. In this case, A commits the crime of homicide with
the aggravating circumstance of a “in contempt of or with insult to the public authority”.

“Public Authority” = or sometimes also called person in authority who is directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. The
councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc. are persons in authority. The barangay captain and
barangay chairman are also persons in authority.

That the crime be committed in contempt or of insult to the public authorities is not applicable in
the presence of an agent only, like if a crime be committed in the presence of the Chief of Police of a
town, for he is not a public authority, but an agent of the authorities.

An agent of a person in authority is any person who by direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
barangay leader, and any person who comes to aid of persons in authority.

If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is in the performance of official duty,
the offender commits direct assault without this aggravating circumstance, because it is not a crime
committed in contempt of or with insult to him, but a crime directly committed against him.

Paragraph 3 of 21 – That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due
the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of the crime.

It cannot be taken into account for crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a
crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the
latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.

“with insult or in disregard” = Specific fact or circumstance showing insult or disregard of sex, age
or rank I order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. There must be an evidence
that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex, or
age of the offended party.
Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, which can be considered single or together.
If all the circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only.
1. That the act be committed with insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank

“rank” = refers to a high social positions or standing as a grade in the armed forces;
= or to a graded official standing or social position or station;
=or to the order or place in which said officers are placed in the army and navy in relation
to others;
=or to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his
relative position in reference to other officers in matters or privileges, precedence, and
sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of
army staff officers;
=or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of
comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status, or scale of compensation within a
position.

a. There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party.
b. A private citizen who attacked and injured a person in authority, if the act not constituting
direct assault under Article 148.
c. A pupil who attacked and injured his teacher, if the act not constituting direct assault under
Article 148.
d. Killing a judge because he was strict or because of resentment which the accused harbored
against him as a judge, constitutes the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank.
e. An attempt upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his
rank.
f. The killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal.
g. The killing of the Asst. Chief of personnel Transaction of the CSC by a clerk therein.
h. The murder by a pupil of his teacher.
i. The murder of a municipal mayor.
j. The murder of a city Chief of Police by the Chief of the Secret Service Division.
k. Assault upon a 66-year old CFI (now RTC) judge by a justice of the peace (now Municipal
Judge)
l. The killing of a consul by a mere chancellor.
m. The killing of an army general.
n. Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult is required in order to appreciate
the aggravating circumstance on account of the offender’s rank, age or sex.

2. That the act be committed with insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his age
a. This circumstance is present when the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the
father of the offender.
b. This aggravating circumstance applies to an aggressor, 45 years old, while the victim was an
octogenarian, which is old and very weak. (80 plus)
 c. The crime was committed in disregard of the respect due to the victim on account of the
respect due to the victim on account of age and relationship, the accused being a grandson
of the deceased.
d. Disregard of age not aggravating in robbery with homicide since the primarily, the crime is
robbery. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery.
e. This circumstance applies to tender age as well as to old age. This circumstance was applied
in a murder case where one of the victims was a boy twelve years of age.
f. Proof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult is required in order to appreciate
the aggravating circumstance on account of the offender’s rank, age or sex.

3. That the act be committed with insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his sex
a. This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
b. When a person compels a woman to go to his house against her will, the crime of coercion
with the aggravating circumstance of disrespect to sex is committed.
c. The accused who, upon knowing the death of their relative, and not being able to take
revenge on the killers, because of their imprisonment, selected and killed a female relative
of the killers in retaliation, committed the act with this aggravating circumstance.
d. Direct assault upon a lady teacher.
e. This circumstance cannot be taken into consideration when the offender acted with passion
and obfuscation.
f. This circumstance cannot be taken into consideration when there exists a relationship
between the offended party and the offender, lovers, or employer-laborer relationship.
g. This circumstance cannot be taken into consideration when the condition of being a woman
is indispensable in the commission of crime, rape, parricide, abduction or seduction.
h. Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery as a general rule.
4. That it (the act) be committed in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given
provocation.
“dwelling” = it must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
“combination house and store”, or a market stall where the victim slept is NOT dwelling. It
includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure under the house.
a. Dwelling is considered aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of
privacy the law accords to human abode. According to one commentator, one’s dwelling
place is a “sanctuary worthy of respect” and that one who slanders another in the latter’s
house is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. The commission of the crime in
one’s dwelling aggravates (1) the abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in
the offender by opening the door to him; or (2) the violation of the sanctity of the home by
trespassing therein with violence or against the will of the owner.
b. The evidence must show clearly that the defendant entered the house of the deceased to
attack him.
c. Offended party must not give provocation (sine qua non), otherwise he loses his right to the
respect and consideration due him in his own house. The provocation that invalidates the
claim of an aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be a) given by the owner of the
dwelling; b) sufficient; c) immediate to the commission of the crime.
d. There must be close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling.
e. Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given by the offended party.
f. Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circumstance applies
g. Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the
commission of the crime was begun in the dwelling.
h. Dwelling is aggravating when in abduction or illegal detention, the victim was taken from
her or his house and carried away to another place.
i. But dwelling was not aggravating in a case where the deceased was called down from his
house and he was murdered in the vicinity of the house.
j. If the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder when he was assaulted,
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling will not be applicable.
k. When the deceased had two houses where he used to live, the commission of the crime in
any of them is attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
l. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of
the offended party’s house. Entrance into the dwelling house of the offended party is not an
element of the offense.
m. Dwelling is not aggravating when both offender and offended party are occupants of the
same house and this is true even if offender is a servant in the house.
n. Dwelling is not aggravating in rape where the accused and the offended party are domiciled
in the same house.
o. Dwelling is not aggravating when the robbery is committed by the use of force upon things,
dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent. To commit robbery by the use of force
upon things, the offender must enter the dwelling house, or other building, of the offended
party.
p. Dwelling is not aggravating in the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or included by
law in defining the crime. This crime can be committed only in the dwelling of another.
q. Dwelling is not aggravating in case of adultery where the paramour also lives there.
r. Dwelling is not aggravating when the dwelling where the crime committed did not belong to
the offended party, with exceptions.
s. Dwelling is aggravating though the crime was committed not in the dwelling of the victims
when the victim was raped in the boarding house where she was a bedspacer. Her room
constituted as a “dwelling” as the term used in Article 14, paragraph 3 of the RPC.
t. Dwelling is aggravating though the crime was committed not in the dwelling of the victims
where the victims were raped in their paternal home where they were guests at the time
and did not reside there.
u. Dwelling is aggravating though the crime was committed not in the dwelling of the victims
where the victim was killed in the house of her aunt where she was living with her niece.
(dwelling here is a temporary dwelling)
v. Dwelling is aggravating though the crime was committed not in the dwelling of the victims
where the victims, while sleeping as guests in the house of another person, were shot to
death in that house. The code speaks of dwelling and not “domicile”.
w. Dwelling is aggravating when the husband killed his estranged wife in the house solely
occupied by her.
x. Dwelling is aggravating when adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband, even if
it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is aggravating because besides the latter’s
breach of the fidelity she owes her husband, she and her paramour violated the respect due
 to the conjugal home and they both thereby injured and committed a very grave offense
against the head of the house.

Paragraph 4 of 21 – That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence, or (2) obvious
ungratefulness.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways
employed.

“Abuse of confidence” = this circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the
offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The abuse of confidence must be a
means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended
party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.

Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of that crime

Abuse of Confidence is aggravating in the following cases:

1. A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her to a ride in the
country. The girl, unsuspecting of his plans, went with him. While they were in the car, the
jealous lover stabbed her.
2. When the killer of the child is the domestic servant of the family and is sometimes the deceased
child’s amah.
3. The act of stealing the property of the host.

Abuse of Confidence is not aggravating in the following cases:

1. After preliminary advances of the master, the female servant refused and fled. The master
followed and after catching up with her, threw her on the ground and committed the crime of
rape. When the master raped the offended party, she had already lost her confidence in him
from the moment he made an indecent proposal and offended her with a kiss. 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.
2. In attempted rape, where on the day of the crime, the accused was in the company of the
offended girl, not because of her confidence on him, but because they were partners in a certain
business.
3. Where the deceased and the accused happened to be together because the former invited the
latter nightclubbing and to bring with him the money the latter owed the former.

Remember:
1. Betrayal of confidence is not aggravating, where there is no showing that the accused was able
to commit the crime by abusing the confidence reposed in him by the offended party. The
accused betrayed the confidence reposed in him by the parents of the girl., not an abuse of
confidence.
2. The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal.
3. Abuse of Confidence inherent in some felonies. (Article 217. Malversation, Article 210. Qualified
Theft, Article 315. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation, Article 337. Qualified seduction.

Obvious Ungratefulness is aggravating in the following cases:

1. In the case of the accused who killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially
supported him.
2. Where the accused was living in the house of the victim who employed him as an overseer an in
charge of carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the victim who was very kind to
him, his family, and helped him solved his problems.
3. Where a security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the bank.
4. Where the victim suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the assailants their bread and
coffee for breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at least doing him non harm, they
took advantage of his helplessness when his two arms were used for carrying their food, thus
preventing him from defending himself from the sudden attack.
5. When a visitor commits robbery or theft ion the house of his host.

Paragraph 5 of 21 – That the crime be committed (1) in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or (2) where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or (3) in a
place dedicated to religious worship.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be respected.

Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties vs. In contempt
or of insult to public authorities.
Place where public authorities are engaged in In contempt or of insult to public authorities.
the discharge of their duties (Paragraph 5) (Paragraph 2)
Public authorities are in the performance of Public authorities are in the performance of
duties duties
The public authorities is in their office The public authorities is outside of their office
The public authorities may be the offended The public authorities should not be the
party offended party

Remember:
1. If the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, of course, the Malacanang, it is
immaterial whether State or Official functions are being held.
2. If the crime be committed in the place of worship, the church, it is immaterial whether religious
functions are being held.
3. Even if the Chief Executive is not in the palace, or even if he is not engaged in the discharge of
his duties, if the crime be committed in his presence, there is aggravating circumstance.
4. There is aggravating circumstance where an electoral precinct during election day is a place
where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.
5. Cemeteries are not place dedicated to religious worship.
6. Offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place dedicated to
religious worship
Paragraph 6 of 21 – 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.

Requisites:
1. When these three circumstances facilitated in the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

“Whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense”

1. When because of the darkness of the night the crime can be perpetrated unmolested, or
interference can be avoided, or there would be greater certainty in attaining the ends of the
offender.
2. To such an extent that the defendant was able to consummate it with all its dastardly details
without anyone of the persons living in the same premises becoming aware of what was
going on.

“especially sought for” and “took advantage thereof”

1. The accused wait for the night before committing robbery with homicide, thus, nighttime is
especially sought for.
2. The accused who was living 150 meters away from the victim’s house waited for nightfall to
hide his identity and facilitate his escape, knowing that most barrio folks are already asleep,
or getting ready to sleep at 9:00 pm.
3. The accused lingered for almost three hours in the evening at the restaurant before carrying
out their plan to rob.
4. The accused tried to ascertain whether the occupants of the house were asleep, thereby
indicating the desire to carry out the plot with the least detection or to insure its
consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.

“for the purpose of impunity” = means to prevent his (accused’s) being recognized or to secure
himself against detection and punishment.
“Nighttime” = should be understood to be the period from beginning at end of dusk and ending at
dawn. (6:00pam to 6:00 am)
“uninhabited place” =it 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.
“by a band” = whenever there are more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in
the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

Remember:
Nighttime
1. The information must have alleged that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of by the
accused or that it facilitated the commission of the crime.
2. It is not aggravating when the crime began at daytime. (5:00 pm to 7:00 pm). The commission
of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime.
3. The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of the night.
4. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
5. The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not negate the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime.
Uninhabited place
6. It is not aggravating when the place where the crime was committed could be seen and the
voice of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house.
7. The test is: Whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help.
8. It is aggravating when even just 100 meters away from the nearest house, the sugarcane in the
field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby.
9. It is aggravating when the victim is in a banca, whereby it is difficult for the victim to receive
any help and it was easy for the assailants to escape punishment.
10. A place about 1km from the nearest house of other inhabited place is considered an
uninhabited place, but if the accused did not select the place either to better attain their object
without interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment, this
aggravating circumstance cannot be considered.
11. It is aggravating when the victims are the occupants of the only house in the place.
12. The accused sought the solitude of the place where the crime was committed, in order to attain
his purpose, thus aggravating.
By a band
13. Even if there are 20 persons but only 3 are armed, this aggravating circumstance cannot be
taken.
14. “Stone” is included in the term “arms”.
15. If one of the four armed persons is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band.
16. It is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of illegal
detention or treason.
17. This aggravating circumstance cannot be considered in the crime of rape committed by four
armed persons.
18. Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms, absorbed in aggravating circumstance of “by a
band”
19. “By a band” is inherent in brigandage.
20. It is aggravating in robbery with homicide.

Paragraph 7 of 21 - That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by time of the commission
of the crime.

Reason for the aggravation: The reason is found in the debased form of criminality met in one
who, in the midst of the great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering
by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.

Requisite: The offender must take the advantage of calamity or misfortune.

Remember: The phrase “or other calamity or misfortune” refers to other conditions of distress
similar to those preceding enumerated, that is “conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, or epidemic.”
Hence, chaotic conditions after liberation is not included under this paragraph, but in the case of
People vs. Penjan, the chaotic condition resulting from the liberation of San Pablo was considered a
calamity.

Paragraph 8 of 21 – That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons
who insure or afford impunity.

Requisites:
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 relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
Remember:
1. The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime was committed does not
constitute this aggravating circumstance, the requisites should be present.
2. The armed men must take part directly or indirectly.
3. This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed.
4. This aggravating circumstance shall not be considered when the accused as well as those who
cooperated with him in the commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the
same purpose.
5. “Aid or armed men” includes “armed women”.
6. “Aid of armed men” is absorbed by “employment of a band” if there are more than three armed
malefactors.

Aid of Armed men vs. by a band

Aid of Armed men by a band
If there are three armed men or less , If there are four or more armed men
Exists even if one of the offenders merely relied These men acted together in the commission of
on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary an offense.

Paragraph 9 of 21 – The accused is a recidivist.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crimes.

“recidivist” = A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code
(The RPC).

Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense (the date of present case, the arraignment itself);
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPCS;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
Remember:
1. Judgement for three offenses were read on the same day, the accused is not a recidivist.
2. Section 7 of Rule 120 of the revised rules of Criminal Procedure provides that except where the
death penalty is imposed, a judgment in a criminal case become final 1. After the lapse of the
period for perfecting an appeal; 2. When the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or
served; 3. The accused has waived his right to appeal; 4. The accused has applied for probation.
3. Section 6 of Rule 122 provides that “an appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation or notice of the judgment or order appealed from”.
4. There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between two felonies is more than 10 years.
5. Pardon does not obliterate (removes) the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty
extinguishes the penalty and its effects.

Paragraph 10 of 21 – 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.
Basis: (same with recidivism) This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by
his inclination to crimes.

Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense (the date of present case, the arraignment itself);
2. That he previously served sentenced 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 of the
new offense;
3. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
Case:
The accused was convicted of homicide, less serious physical injuries and slight physical injuries, all
committed on January 14, 1979. He was found by the trial court to have committed offenses prior to
and after the date, as follows:
1. Prior to January 15, 1979, he was arrested and accused of the crime of theft; (meaning po, wala
pa rin final judgment);
2. On May 15, 1973 , he was likewise charged for physical injuries but said case was amicably
settled; (wala pa ring final judgment);
3. On January 15, 1973 , he was likewise charged for the crime of theft and was convicted of said
offense; (Crime against property ito)
4. he was likewise charged and convicted in another criminal case;
5. he was also charged for theft but said case was settled amicably; (wala pa ring judgment)
6. he was charged and convicted for theft on October 30, 1982. (crime against property)

Held: The records did not disclose that the accused has been previously punished. Thus, reiteracion
or habituality is not attendant.

“has been previously punished” = means that the accused previously served sentence for another
offense or sentences for other offenses before his trial for the new offense.

Remember: Reiteracion or habituality is not always aggravating = if, as a result of taking this
circumstance into account, 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 circumstance into account.

The four forms of repetition are:

1. Recidivism = A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this
Code (The RPC). (Generic Aggravating Circumstance)
2. Reiteracion or habituality = 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. (Generic Aggravating Circumstance)
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency = There is habitual delinquency when a person,
within a period of ten (10 ) years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual delinquency, the offender is
either a recidivist or in habituality. He will suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual
delinquent (Extraordinary Aggravating Circumstance)
4. Quasi-recidivism = Any poison 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.
(Article 160)

Example of Quasi-recidivism:
Defendant, while serving sentence in Bilibid for one crime, struck and stabbed the foreman
of the brigade of prisoners. Under Article 160, he shall be punished with the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by the law for the new felony.

Paragraph 11 of 21 – that the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power
itself.

Remember:
1. There are two or more offenders under this aggravating circumstance, both are principals.
The first is principal by inducement and the latter because he commits the crime;
2. Both of the offenders, the one who offered the price, reward or promise and the one who
received those will be liable for this aggravating circumstance.
3. Price, reward or promise must show that one of the accused used money or other valuable
consideration for the purpose of inducing another to perform the deed.

Paragraph 12 of 21 – 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 use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

Basis: This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways
employed.
Remember:
1. Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the
circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be considered as aggravating or to change the nature
of the offense.
2. When there is no actual design to kill a person in burning a house, it is plain arson even if a
person is killed. When the crime intended to be committed is arson and somebody dies as a
result thereof, the crime is simply arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is
not even an independent crime of homicide, it being absorbed.
3. On the other hand, if the offender had the intent to kill the victim, burned the house where
the latter was, and the victim died as a consequence, the crime is murder, qualified by the
circumstance that the crime was committed “by means of fire”.
4. But if a house was set to fire after the killing of the victim, there would be two separate
crimes of arson and murder or homicide. Thus, no aggravating circumstance by means of
fire.
5.

Article 14. Aggravating

Circumstances – The following Basis Elements/Requisites
are aggravating circumstances:
Paragraph 1 of 21 – That This is based on the greater 1. That the offender is a public
advantage be taken by the perversity of the offender, as officer
offender of his public position. shown by the personal 2. That he used influence,
APP (Advantage of Public circumstance of the offender and prestige or ascendancy which his
Position) also by the means used to secure office gave him.
the commission of the crime.

Paragraph 2 of 21 – That the This is based on the greater 1. That the public authority is
crime be committed in contempt perversity of the offender, as engaged in the exercise of his
or of insult to the public shown by his lack of respect for functions
authorities. the public authorities 2. That he who is thus engaged in
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 crime.
Paragraph 3 of 21 – That the act This is based on the greater 1. The circumstances on account
be committed (1) with insult or in perversity of the offender, as of the offender’s rank, age and
disregard of the respect due the shown by the personal sex are applicable only to
offended party on account of his circumstances of the offended crimes against persons or
(a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) party (rank, age, sex) and the honor.
that it be committed in the place of the commission of the 2. The circumstance on account
dwelling of the offended party if crime. (dwelling) of the offender’s sex refers to
the latter has not given female sex only, not male sex.
provocation. 3. In the case of dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance, the
offended party must not give
 provocation.
a. Given by the owner of the
dwelling;
b. sufficient;
c. Immediate to the
commission of the crime.
Paragraph 4 of 21 – That the act This is based on the greater 1. That the offended party had
be committed with (1) abuse of perversity of the offender, as trusted the offender.
confidence, or (2) obvious shown by the means and ways 2. That the offender abused such
ungratefulness. employed. trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission of
that crime

Paragraph 5 of 21 – That the This is based on the greater 1. The Chief Executive is not
crime be committed (1) in the perversity of the offender, as required to be in the discharge
palace of the Chief Executive, or shown by the place of the of his duties.
in his presence, or (2) where commission of the crime, which 2. The public authorities are
public authorities are engaged in must be respected. required to be engaged in their
the discharge of their duties, or public functions.
(3) in a place dedicated to 3. There is no need that the
religious worship. church is having a religious
functions.

Paragraph 6 of 21 – That the This is based on the greater 1. When these three
crime be committed (1) in the perversity of the offender, as circumstances facilitated in the
nighttime, or (2) in an shown by the time, place and commission of the crime; or
uninhabited place, or (3) by a event of the commission of the 2. When especially sought for by
band, whenever such crime which facilitated the the offender to insure the
circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense. commission of the crime or for
commission of the offense. the purpose of impunity
3. When the offender took
advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.

Paragraph 7 of 21 - That the This is based on the greater The offender must take the
crime be committed on the perversity of the offender, as advantage of calamity or
occasion of a conflagration, shown by time of the commission misfortune.
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic of the crime.
or other calamity or misfortune.

Paragraph 8 of 21 – That the This is based on the greater 1. That armed men or persons
crime be committed with the aid perversity of the offender, as took part in the commission of
of (1) armed men, or (2) persons shown by the means and ways the crime, directly or
who insure or afford impunity. employed. indirectly.
2. That the accused availed
himself of their aid or relied
upon them when the crime was
committed.

Paragraph 9 of 21 – The accused This is based on the greater 1. That the offender is on trial for
 is a recidivist. perversity of the offender, as an offense;
shown by his inclination to 2. That he was previously
crimes. convicted by final judgment of
another crime;
3. That both the first and second
offenses are embraced in the
same title of the RPCS;
4. That the offender is convicted
of the new offense.

Paragraph 10 of 21 – That the (same with recidivism) This is 1. That the offender is on trial for
offender has been previously based on the greater perversity of an offense (the date of present
punished for an offense to which the offender, as shown by his case, the arraignment itself);
the law attaches an equal or inclination to crimes. 2. That he previously served
greater penalty or for two or sentenced for another offense
more crimes to which it attaches to which the law attaches an
a lighter penalty. equal or greater penalty, or for
two or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty than
that of the new offense;
3. That the offender is convicted
of the new offense.
Paragraph 11 of 21 – that the This is based on the greater 1. There is an offer of a price,
crime be committed in perversity of the offender, as reward or promise.
consideration of a price, reward shown by the motivating power 2. That the commission of the
or promise. itself. offense was due to that price,
reward or promise.

Paragraph 12 of 21 – That This is based on the greater 4.

the crime be committed by perversity of the offender, as
means of inundation, fire, shown by the means and ways
poison, explosion, stranding of employed.
a vessel or intentional damage
thereto, derailment of a
locomotive, or by use of any
other artifice involving great
waste and ruin.