ARTICLE 14 AGGRIVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Those if present, are not automatically offset by mitigating circumstances May increase the penalty

y provided by the law without exceeding the maximum penalty or it changes the nature of the crime

Classification: 1. 2. 3. 4. Generic those that generally apply to all crimes, eg. Recidivism, Aid to Minors, Advantage taken by Public Position etc. Specific those that apply to particular crimes, eg. Ignominy, Treachery Qualitfying those that change the nature of the crime eg. Treachery, Evident Premeditation, Cruelty, etc. Inherent necessity accompanies the commission of the crime, eg. Sex inherent in crimes against chastity.

Difference between Generic and Qualifying: GENERIC Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance The legal effect is to increase the penalty to the maximum without exceeding the limit

QUALIFYING Cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance It changes the nature of the crime Gives the crime its proper and exclusive name

Both qualifying and generic circumstance must be alleged in the information; the prosecution cannot prove an aggravating circumstance during trial. Article 14 (1) Advantage Taken by Public Opinion A generic aggravating circumstance. Based on RA 7659, in crimes committed by a public officer, the penalty prescribed by law is always at the maximum, regardless of the mitigating circumstances presented and regardless of the nature of the mitigating circumstances.

Public Officer for advantage taken to be appreciated, s/he must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which s/he realizes his purpose. There should be a deliberate intent to use the influence, prestige or ascendancy. Is it enough that the offender is a public officer? No, he has to use the influence, prestige or ascendancy given to him by his office. a police officer enters the house then ties up the residents and robs them, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? Yes. a traffic enforcer takes over the car of a driver and speeds away, he is convicted of robbery; can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? Yes. some members of the barangay council asked for financial sponsorship for the education of the community, then the project turned out to be false, can be aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? Yes. , if these crimes were attendant of negligence, passion or obfuscation, vindication or sufficient provocation, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated. No, because these circumstances are incompatible with advantage taken of public position since deliberate intent is absent in these instances. , a police investigator asked a rape victim to enter a room where he committed acts of lasciviousness on the rape victim, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? Yes.

The aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position is NOT appreciated when the public position is an integral element or inherent in the offense; in the ff crimes, public position is inherent: Bribery Indirect Bribery RA 309 Malversation of public funds Falsification of Public Documents Other Crimes against Public Officers under the RPC

Basis for the aggravation: the greater perversity of (1) personal circumstances of the offender and (2) means used to secure commission of the crime. Article 14 (2) Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities Requisites: 1. 2. 3. 4. The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his official functions. The public authority is not the victim of the crime. Offender knows him to be a public authority. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the crime.

Page

one Sunday, the mayor just finished mass, he saw two people fighting, he mediated upon introducing himself, and can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated? Yes, because regardless of the day, even if Sunday is not a regular working day, the official function of the mayor, in this case to maintain peace and order, does not stop as long as he is within his jurisdiction. , using the same facts above, the 2 people attacked the mayor; can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated? No, because the public authority should not be the offended party. , using the same facts, but the mayor attended the mass in another town, can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated? No, because mediating would not be part of his official functions in that other town. , using the same facts above, but the two people did not know that the one mediating was in fact the mayor, can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated. No, the offenders have to know that he is the mayor or a public authority.

Article 14 (3) Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of the Offended Party There are 4 circumstances in this par. Rank, age, sex, have a common denominator: respect due to offended party.

Disregard of rank of the offended party A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance Not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness Not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication, or those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent. This can be done to a person with authority of his agent There should be deliberate intent to disregard or insult = accompanied with the difference in rank, and manifested by deliberate acts. Inherent in the crime of direct assault a sergeant was driving a jeep in a careless manner, then he hit a general can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated? No, there was no deliberate intent to disregard the rank of the general. , physical injuries were made against Prof Amurao by his student, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated? Yes, because Prof. Amurao in authority and ranks higher than the student. , a sergeant sees his wife embracing a general, then he ran over them, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be appreciated of rank be appreciated? No, because this circumstance was attendant of passion or obfuscation.

Disregard of Age of the Offended Party A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance Not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or those with sufficient provocation = because of lack of intent Not applicable to cases attendant to negligence or carelessness For this circumstance to be appreciated, the disparity of age of the offender and the victim can be determined if the victim can be the father of the accused; 15 years or more disparity. Tender age and old age the offender was 90 years old when he stabbed the 105 year old victim, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age be appreciated? Yes, even if the offender was also very old, the disparity of their ages still matters.

Disregard of the Sex of the Offended Party A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Not applicable to cases attendant to negligence and carelessness Not applicable to cases attendant to passion or obfuscation, vindication or those with sufficient provocation = because of lack of intent The victim contemplated in this paragraph should be a woman. The offender should act with deliberate intent to disrespect the woman Disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery

Dwelling a place or structure that satisfies the requirements of domestic life of a person A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance There should be no provocation on the part of the offended party All the ingredients of the crime should be done in the dwelling If the offender and offended are both occupants of the same house, dwelling cannot be appreciated It may mean temporary dwelling The crime was committed in the garage of the house; can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? Yes, because the garage is part of the dwelling. The crime was done in the roof? Yes. A child was kidnapped in the stairs of the dwelling, there was no ransom but the child was killed in Cavite Yes, because the stairs is still part of the dwelling. A husband kills his wife in their conjugal house. No The housemaid kills her/his employers child. No. The accused was on the road when he shot the victim who was on the stairs. Yes The victim is in the yard going to the direction of the stairs. No. The victim was about to step on the stairs. Yes. The employer raped their maid. No. The houseboy killed the housemaid. No. The wife commits adultery. Yes.

Page

The accused owner of the house, the victim was a tenant. Yes. Toilet? Yes. The owner was killed 500 meters away from the toilet which was situated outside the house. No because if you destroy the toilet the house remains intact.

Basis: place of the commission of the crime; the sanctity of privacy that the law provides the human abode. ARTICLE 14 (4) abuse of Confidence/Obvious Ungratefulness This paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances

Abuse of Confidence exist 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 partys belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; can be raised to the maximum. These are instances where abuse of confidence is qualifying: a. Qualified theft b. Qualified seduction c. Qualified rape

Requisites: 1. 2. 3. Offender had trusted the offended Offender abused such trust with the commission of the crime Abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

There should be direct relationship and trust Confidence must be immediate and personal

Abuse of confidence is inherent in the ff: a. b. c. d. Malversation Estafa Qualified theft Qualified seduction

Lovers broke off 1 week before their encounter. No. A nanny killed 2 years old. No, no direct relationship and trust between nanny and child. The nanny killed the mother of that child. Yes, there is direct relationship and trust between the nanny and the parents. Ungratefulness must be obvious, manifest and clear A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating; can be raised to the maximum Applicable to domestic servants, katiwalas, security guards. Not applicable oif both offended and offender liv in the same house.

Basis: greater perversity of the ways and means employed. ARTICLE 14 (5) Palace and places of Commission of Offense This paragraph contemplates FOUR aggravating circumstances Offender must have the intention to commit a crime attendant of the passion or obfuscation, immediate vindication or those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent. Not applicable to cases involving spur of the moment or chance meetings Rationale: the place deserves respect (applies to all the places mentioned under this paragraph)

Crimes committed in the Palace of the Chief Executive A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum Is it necessary that the Chief Executive be there? No. The palace contemplated here is the Malacanang Palace Chef killed by a janitor? Yes. A guest shot FG Arroyo. Yes Same facts, the crime was committed in the lawn. No. Same facts, crime was committed in the presidential mansion. No, because the mansion is not the palace.

Crime committed in the Presence of the Chief Executive -a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum. Requires the personal presence of the Chief Executive

Page

Is it necessary that the crime be committed in the Palace? No. The president personally saw the crime. Yes. The president while watching television saw the crime. No. On board a helicopter, the CE saw the crime from a distance. Yes. The offender had no knowledge the CE was present or near the place of the commission of the crime. No.

Crime committed in the Place where Public Authorities are in Discharge of their Duties A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by ordinary mitigating; penalty can be raised to the maximum. Emphasizes the place of the commission of the crime The public authority must be in the exercise or performance of ones official function

Crime committed in a Place Dedicated for Religious Worship A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum. Emphasizes the respect that should be afforded to the place. There was no ceremony in the church when the crime was committed. Yes. There was no priest in the church. No. A chapel inside the cemetery. No. It should be a place where regular religious ceremonies are held.

Basis: Greater perversity shown by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected. ARTICLE 14 (6) Night time, uninhabited Place or Band This paragraph contemplates THREE aggravating circumstance All the three circumstance are not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with sufficient provocation.

Applicable in cases where: 1. 2. 3. Nighttime A qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating; CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME Nighttime means: begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn What is especially sought for by the offender is the darkness of the night This circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental meetings, chance encounters, or spur of the moment. The crime was committed inside a dark movie house at around 4pm. No, sought for this is the darkness of the night, not the darkness of the movie house, it was only 4pm. Inside a movie house with lights still on and the time was 9pm. No, even if it was nighttime the place was well-lighted. The crime was committed in a place where it was well-lighted by a Meralco light post. No. The circumstance facilitated the commission of the crime The circumstance was especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crimes or for the purpose of impunity. To commit the crime with more ease. Contemplates a planned attack; not a mere encounter. The offender took advantage of the circumstance for the purpose of impunity. To prevent being recognized or to secure himself against detection.

Uninhabited Place A qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance; CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME There should be intent Spur of the moment not applicable What is considered is the reasonable possibility of the victim to receive some help; the degree of difficulty of giving assistance or help. Solitude (must be sought for to better attain criminal purpose) For an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal design To insure concealment of the offense; security against detection and punishment.

Band More than three malefactors Shall have acted together A qualifying circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating; CHNAGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME What do you mean by armed? Only guns? NO, knives are considered; anything that can kill a person. Aggravating in crimes against property and crimes against persons; not applicable in crimes against chastity.

Basis: time and place of the commission and means employed. ARTICLE 14 (7) On Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune

Page

That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune. A qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating; CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME There would be deliberate intent to take advantage. This circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental meetings, chance encounters, or spur of the moment. This circumstance is not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness. Not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with sufficient provocation.

Rationale: in the midst if great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, the offender adds to the victim s suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil. The offender must seek for the calamity as an opportunity to take advantage or to commit the crime. The offender saw his mortal enemy in a flood, and then he killed his mortal enemy. No.

Basis: time of the commission of the crime ARTICLE 14 (8) Aid or Armed Men, etc. That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity.

Armed Men At least 2 men; the law says men; 4 men = band already A qualifying circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating; CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME

Rule: Casual presence of armed men is NOT aggravating. The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in the crime. The offender must avail of the aid. Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is sufficient. Actual aid is NOT necessary.

Persons who insure or Afford Impunity A qualifying aggravating circumstance These persons should have or be in a position to afford impunity. A judge? Yes. An employee? No. Secretary? No. Mistress? No.

Basis: means and ways of committing the crime ARTICLE 14 (9) Recidivism A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset; penalty can be raised to the maximum.

Recidivist on who, at the time of his trial from one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. Requisites: 1. 2. 3. 4. That the offender is on trial for an offense That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime. That both the first and the second offense are embraced in the same title in the RPC. The offender is convicted of the new offense. The first offense was the acts of lasciviousness in 1980, and then the second offense in 2006 was attempted rape. NO. Not in the same title: Acts of lasciviousness Crimes against Chastity while, Attempted Rape Crimes against Persons. The first offense in 1980 was attempted rape, the second offense in 2006 was acts of lasciviousness. Yes because in 1980, attempted rape was under the Crimes against Chastity, hence both crimes are embraced in the same title of the RPC.

Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist. The time or period between the two offenses is immaterial.

Page

ARTICLE 14 (10) Reiteration or Habituality

Basis: Inclination to crimes.

Requisites: 1. 2. 3.

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. A generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset; penalty can be raised to the maximum.

That the accused in is trial for an offense That he previously served sentence for another offense which the law attaches an equal or greater offense. That he is convicted of the new offense.

Difference between Recidivism and Reiteration Recidivism It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered for the 1st offense. Requires that both offenses be embraces in the same title of the RPC. Always taken into consideration in terms of the penalty to be imposed. Reiteration It is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the 1st offense. 1st and 2nd offense must not be embraced in the same title of the RPC. Not always an aggravating circumstance. Previous crimes must be of equal or greater in penalty (at least one) or at least two lighter penalties.

If the 2nd crime is an offense punishable under a special law, it cannot be considered under reiteration because Art. 13, 14, 15 of the RPC are not applicable to special law crimes, applicable only to crimes defined under the RPC. The 2st offense is illegal possession of firearms ( a special law crime), punishable under reclusion temporal, while the 2 nd offense is less serious physical injuries. Yes if the offender was previously punished for a special law crime or an offense, the nature of the crime is immaterial; the emphasis is on the punishment or penalty.

4 Forms of Repetition: 1. Recidivism 2. Reiteration or Habituality 3. Habitual Delinquency/Multi-recidivism when a person within a period of 10 years from the date of release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical or while serving the same. Shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law for the new penalty. 4. Quasi-recidivism any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same, shall be punishable by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new penalty. Basis: Inclination to crimes. ARTICLE 14 (11) Price, Reward or Promise A qualifying circumstance cannot be offset; Changes the nature of the crime. The price, reward or promise must be the sole motivating factor for committing the crime; must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform a deed. There should be two or more offenders: the one who offers, the one who accepts it.

Criminal Participation the one who offers is the principal by inducement; the one who accepts is a principal by direct participation. It is not necessary that the principal by direct participation receive the reward or promise; what is important is that the reward or promise was the sole motivating factor otherwise the crime would not have been committed. The one who commits the crimes knows of the reward or promise. No, because it was not the motivation.

Basis: Greater perversity by the motivating power itself. ARTICLE 14 (12) By Means of Inundation, Fire, ETC. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste or ruin. A qualifying circumstance.

There are instances when these circumstances are inherent in the crime, thus cannot be appreciated as aggravating to the crime: 1. By means of fire Arson 2. By means of derailment of a Locomotive Damage to means of communication 3. By means of explosion (without intent to kill) Destruction of property. Difference of Par. 7 (On Occasion of Calamity or Misfortune) and Par. 12 (Inundation, Fire ETC.) In par 7. It is not within the offenders control; par. 12, the acts if great waste and ruin are used by the offender as means.

Page

Page