A8 2 1haL Lhe crlme be commlLLed ln conLempL of or wlLh lnsulL Lo publlc auLhorlLles

8ASlS lack of respecL Lo publlc auLhorlLles

8LCulSl1LS
1 1haL Lhe publlc auLhorlLy ls engaged |n the exerc|se of h|s funct|on
2 1haL he who ls Lhus engaged ln Lhe exerclse of sald funcLlons ls not the person aga|nst
whom the cr|me |s comm|tted
3 1he offender nows hlm Lo be a publlc auLhorlLy
4 ls presence has not prevented Lhe offender from commlLLlng Lhe crlmlnal acL
u8LlC Au18l1? petsoo lo ootbotlty ls a publlc offlcer who ls dlrecLly vesLed wlLh ur|sd|ct|on
has Lhe power Lo govern and execuLe Lhe laws ex Councllor mayor governor brgy capLaln and
brgy chalrman
ACLn1 A L8Sn ln Au18l1? any person who by dlrecL provlslon of law or by elecLlon or by
appolnLmenL by compeLenL auLhorlLy ls charged wlLh Lhe malnLenance of publlc order and Lhe
proLecLlon and securlLy of llfe and properLy ex barrlo pollceman brgy leader
eople v Slo[o
O Crlme was commlLed ln Lhe presence of chlef of pollce of a Lown
O noL aggravaLlng merely an agenL of publlc auLhorlLy
eople v SanLok
O eceased shoL whlle ln performance of hls offlclal duLy as barrlo lleuLenanL
O Crlme of homlclde wlLh aggravaLlng clrcumsLance of commlsslon of Lhe offense ln conLempL
of publlc auLhorlLy rule noL followed so don'L follow Lhls
Par 3: the act committed (1) with the insult or a disregard of the respect
due to the offended party on account of his (a)rank, (b) age), (c) sex or
(2)that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
When all the four aggravating circumstances are present, must they be
considered as one?
Four circumstances enumerated in this paragraph can be considered
single or together
If all four are present - weight of ONE aggravating circumstance only
See case of People v. SANTOS cited in par 6.
AC of sex and age of injured party as well as of dwelling place and
nighttime must also be taken into account (People v. TAGA)
Basis - greater perversity of offender, as shown by personal circumstances of
the offended party and the place of the commission of the crime
Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor
Circumstance of rank, age or sex may be taken into only in crimes
against PERSONS or HONOR
In case of robbery of a thing belonging to the President, the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of respect due the offended
party cannot be taken into account - thing belongs to the president
does not make it more valuable than the thing belonging to a private
person
isregard of respect due to the offended party on account of rank,
age, sex - considered in crimes against persons and honor, when in
commission of crime, there is some insult or disrespect of rank, age
or sex.
Not proper to consider this AC in crimes against property. Robbery
with homicide is primarily a crime against property, and not person.
Homicide is mere incident of the robbery (People v. PAGAL)
Meaning of "with insult or in disregard
Necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that
the victim is a woman (or an old man or one of high rank), showing
insult or disregard of sex (or age or rank) in order that it be
considered as AC. (People v. VALENCIA)
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the
accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the
offended party. (People v. MANGSANT)
Circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating, there was
no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult
the age of victim. (People v. IAZ)
With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account
1. Of the rank of offended party
There must be a difference in SOCIAL CONITION of the offender and
offended party.
Example:
Private Citizen who attacked and injured a person in authority, or in
pupil who attacked and injured his teacher - the act not constituting
direct assault under Art 148 of RPC. (US v. CABILING)
illing a Judge because he was strict or because of resentment, which
the accused harbored against him as a judge, constitutes AC of
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank. (People v. VALERIANO)
Attempt upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army is committed
in disregard of his rank. (People v. TORRES)
Rank was aggravating in the following cases:
O illing of staff sergeant by his corporal
O illing of Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of Civil
Service Commission by a clerk
O Murder of pupil of his teacher
O Murder of municipal mayor
O Murder of City Chief of Police by the secret service division
O Assault upon a 66 yo CFI (RTC)
O Judge by a justice of peace (Municipal Judge)
O illing of Consul by a mere chancellor
O illing of an Army General (People v. Rodil)
Meaning of rank
High social position or standing as:
grade in armed forces
graded official standing or social position or station
order of place in which said officer are placed in army and navy in
relation to others
designation of title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to
fix his relative position in reference to other officers in matters
of privileges, precedence and some command or by which
determines his pay and emoluments in case of army staff officer
grade or official standing
relative position in civil or social life
any scale of comparison, status, grade, including grade, statues or
scale of comparison within a position (People v. ROIL)
!roof of fact of disregard and deliberate intent to insult required
People v. TALAY
isregard rank of victim who was a barangay captain cannot be
appreciated as AC there being no proof of specific fact or
circumstance that accused disregard the respect due to
offended party
Nor appear that the accused deliberately intended to insult the
rank of victim as barrio captain

2. Of the age the offended party
Present when the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the
father of the offender (Viada, 1 Cod Pen; US v ESMEIA)
AC applies to an aggressor, 45 years old, while victim was an
octogenarian (People v. ORBILLO)
AC applies in case where the person killed was 80 years old and very
weak (People v. GUMUAC)
AC of disregard of age attended the commission of crime when
deceased was 65 while the offenders were 32 and 27 of age (People
v. ZAPATA)
Crime was committed in disregard of the respect due to the victim on
account of age and relationship, when accused being the grandson of
the deceased. (People v. CURATCHIA)
Circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where
victim is on TENER AGE as well as of OL AGE.
This was applied in a case where one of the victims of the murder
was 12 years old.
The victim was only 3 years old (People v. LORA)
One victim was 5, another, a minor and the third a 7-month old baby
(People v. ENOT)
When injuries inflicted upon a 9 year old girl were without any
thought or intention, heaping contumely or insult upon the child
because of her sex or tender age, circumstance is not considered
aggravating (US v. ACQUEL)
eliberate intent to offend or insult requires
Circumstance of old age not considered in absence of evidence that
the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of victim
(People v. IAZ)
isregard of old age not aggravating in robbery with homicide
Not proper to consider disregard of old age in crimes against
property. Robbery with homicide is primarily the crime against
property and not against person. Homicide is mere incident of
robbery, latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal
(People v. NABALUNA)
Applies in tender age, when in a murder case, where one of the
victims was a boy twelve years of age (US v. BUTAG)
3. Of sex of the offended party
Refers to the FEMALE sex, not the male.
Example
a. A person compelled a woman to go to his house against her will,
the crime of coercion with the aggravating circumstance of
disrespect of sex is committed (US v. QUEVENGCO)
b. Accused, upon knowing the death of relative and not being able
to take revenge on killers, due to imprisonment, selected and
killed a female relative of killers in retaliation, committed the act
with AC (People v. AYUG)
c. irect assault upon a lady teacher (SARCEPUEES v. People)
o disregard of respect due to sex
People v. MANGSANT
A and B (a woman) were sweat hearts
B told A she no longer cared for him, and she loved another
man
A stabbed B to death
Not proved of admitted by accused that when committed the
crime, he had intention to offend or disregard the sex of victim
illing a woman is not attended by this aggravating circumstance if the offender
did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her sex
Not aggravating in absence of evidence that accused deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex of victim or showed manifest
disrespect to her womanhood. (People v. PUNO)
Not applicable in certain cases
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation
People v. IBANEZ

Man blinded with passion and obfuscation, being a condition of the
mind, could have been conscious that his act was done with
disrespect to the offended party

2. When there exist a relationship between the offended party and the
offender
People v. VALENCIA
After divorce, the wife was given the custody of the baby girl.
The accused met his wife and asked her to allow him to visit
their daughter, but she turned down his request.
Accused became infuriated and pointed gun at her as she
boarded the carretela, the gun went off and she was injured
Though been divorce, there still existed some relationship which
had direct bearing with their only daughter.
Since the court had entrusted their daughter to the wife, the
accused had to deal with no other person but his former wife to
visit their daughter.
People v. AANATSU
Record does not show that the commission of the crime was
attended by an offense to or disregard the age of the offended
party, about 75 or 65 years old
Taken into account the circumstance under which the act in
question developed and pre-existing relations between the
accused and the deceased.

3. When the conditions being a woman is indispensible in the
commission of the crime
In PARRICIE, RAPE, ABUCTION or SEUCTION, sex is NOT
aggravating
Rape being a sex crime or committed against a woman, trial court
erred in considering sex as an aggravating circumstance in imposing
the penalty in being inherent in the crime of rape (People v. LOPEZ)
isregard of sex absorbed in treachery
There was disregard of sex because the blouse of victim was
removed, but the circumstance was absorbed in treachery which is
attendant (People v. MANGSANT)
People v. LAPAZ
Held that AC of disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in
treachery because treachery refers to the manner of the
commission of the crime, while disregard of sex and age
pertains to the relationship of victim
That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party
welling - must be a building structure exclusively for rest and
comfort; a combination house and store or market stall where the
victim slept is not a dwelling.
asis - Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the offense
welling - considered because it is the sanctity of privacy the law
accords to human abode, it is a sanctuary worthy of respect such that
one who slanders another in the latters house is more guilty than he
who offends him elsewhere. (People v. Balansi)
What aggravates the commission of the crime in ones dwelling:
1. 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, with violence
or against the wall of the owner. (dissenting opinion of Justice
Villareal)

HOME -sacred place of its owners; one who goes to anothers house
and to slander him, or dong wrong, is more guilty that he offends
elsewhere. (Viada, 5th ed)
Evidence must show clearly that defendant entered the house of
deceased to attak him. (People v. LUMASAG)
Offended party must not give provocation
condition sine qua non of this circumstance is that the offended party
"has not given provocation to the offender. When offended party has
provoked, he loses the right to respect and consideration due him in
his house (People v. AMBIS)
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
The provocation must be:
1. Given by owner of the house
2. Sufficient
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime
If all are present, the offended party, the offended part is deemed to
have given provocation, thus, if committed in the dwelling place, is
not aggravating circumstance.
If any of these is not present, it deemed has not given provocation,
and if crime is committed in dwelling of the offended part, is an
aggravating circumstance.
There must be close relationship between provocation and commission in the
dwelling.
Although AC of dwelling cannot take place if provocation was given by
the offended party, this is true when there exist a close relation
between the provocation and commission of the crime in dwelling of
the person whom the provocation came. (People v. EQUINA)
Because the provocation is not immediate dwelling is aggravating
People v. EQUINA
efendant learned that deceased and formers wife were
maintaining illicit relationship
One night, he went to house of deceased and killed him
uring the trial, defense contended that deceased provoked the
crime by the illicit affairs with his wife
Provocation (illicit affairs) was NOT given immediately prior to
the commission of the crime.
welling is aggravating
Even if defendant knew the illicit relations immediately before he
went to the house of the deceased, the AC of dwelling may still be
considered because provocation did NOT take place in that house.
If defendant surprised the deceased and wife in act of adultery in
house of deceased, the AC of dwelling would not exist.
Owner of dwelling gave immediate provocation - dwelling is not aggravating
welling is not aggravating, though the incident in house of victim,
where the stabbing was triggered off by his provocative and insulting
acts, for having given sufficient provocation before commission of
crime, he had LOST his right to the respect and consideration due
him in his own house (People v. ATIENZA)
US v. LICARTE
In house of offended party
Offended party began to abuse the daughter of the accused and
called her vile names
Accused heard the insulting words and appeared in from of the
house and demanded explanation
Quarrel resulted, and accused being very angry and excited
entered the house of the offended party and struck her with a
bolo..
The invasion of privacy of the offended partys home was the
direct and immediate consequence of the provocation given by
her.
NO AC of dwelling
Prosecution must prove that provocation was given by the offended party
People v. PAAH
Offended party has not given provocation in his house
Must be shown by evidence of prosecution, as it cant be
assumed.
Essential elements of AC of dwelling.
Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circumstance applies
People v. OMPIA
AC of dwelling should be taken into account.
Triggerman fired against shot from outside, the victim was
inside
To be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should
have entered the dwelling
Enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
Although assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the
assault from without
welling was held aggravating where the victim who was asleep in
his house was shot as he opened the door of his house, being called
and awaken by the accused (People v. TALAY)
welling is aggravating, even if offender did not enter the upper
house where the victim was, but shot from her under the house
(People v. BAUTISTA)
Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating provided that
the commission of crime was begun in the dwelling
Accused began the aggression upon the deceased in the latters
dwelling, by binding his hands or dragging him outside from the
house, and after taking him to place near the house he killed him.
welling is AC since the act performed cannot be divided or the unity
resulting from details be broken up (US v. LASTIMOSA)
welling is aggravating in abduction or illegal detention
Abduction or illegal detention - victim was taken from his or her
house and carried away to another place; dwelling is aggravating (US
v. BANILA)
Not aggravating when the deceased was called down from his house
and he was murdered in the vicinity of the house (US v. RAMOS)
What dwelling includes
welling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and
enclosure under the house. (US v. TAPAN)
People v. IAMONON
Victim was stabbed at the foot of their stairs
welling not aggravating
Justice Aquino: dwelling is aggravating because killing took
place at the foot of the stairs of the victims house.
eceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder when
he was assaulted; dwelling will not be applicable (People v. SESPENE)
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.
Aggravating circumstance was present, because the deceased was
murdered in the house at Franco Street in Tondo, which was one of
the two houses (the other at Constancia, Samapaloc) where the
deceased used to live and have his place of abode during his stay in
Manila (People v. Rodriguez)





welling is not aggravating in the following cases:
1. Both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house
(US v. RORIGUEZ) - true even if the offender is a servant of the
house

welling is not aggravating in rape where the accused and the
offended party are domiciled in the same house (People v. MORALES)

2. Robbery is committed by the use of force upon things dwelling is not
aggravating because it is INHERENT. To commit robbery, use of force
upon things, the offender must enter the dwelling house or building
of the offended party. (US v. Cas)

welling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or
intimidation of person because this class of robbery can be
committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended partys house. Entrance into dwelling house of offended
party is not an element of offense (People v. CABATO)

welling is not inherent, aggravating in robbery with homicide since
the author could have accomplished the heinous deed without having
to violate the domicile of victim (People v. MESIAS)

*NOTE: 2 kinds of robbery:
- robbery with violence against or intimidation of person
- robbery with force upon things in inhabited house

3. In crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or included by law un
defining the crime. Can be committed only in the dwelling of another.
4. When owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
provocation.
5. When dwelling where the crime was committed did not belong to the
offended party.

People v. GUHITING
Accused upon hearing the death of sister, went to her house
Saw the sister lying on the floor with head resting on the lap of
her paramour
Thinking that the latter killed her, attacked and killed the
paramour
Aggravating circumstance CANNOT be considered, since
dwelling did NOT belong to the paramour
6. When rape was committed in the ground floor of a 2-story structure,
lower floor being used as a video-rental store and not a private place
of abode of residence. (People v. TANO)
welling was found aggravating in the following cases although the crimes were
committed not in the dwelling of the victims.
1. The victim was raped in the boarding house, where she was a
bedspacer. - her room constituted a "dwelling (People v. ANIEL)
2. Victims were raped in their paternal home, where they were guest at
the time and did not reside.

People v. RAMOLETE
welling was not considered aggravating since victim was a
mere visitor in the house where he was killed.

3. Victim was killed in the house of her aunt where she was living with
her niece. - dwelling was considered aggravating since welling may
mean temporary dwelling (People v. Badilla)
4. Victims, while sleeping as guests in the house on another person,
were shot to death in that house. - dwelling was held aggravating,
this code speaks of "dwelling not domicile (People v. BASA)
welling is aggravating when the husband killed his estranged wife in the house
solely occupied by her
Aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present when the husband
killed his estranged wife in the house occupied by her, other than the
conjugal home (People v. GALAPIA)
In case of adultery
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,
aside from the latters breach of fidelity, she and paramour violated
the respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby injured
and committed grace offense against the head of the house. (US v.
IBANEZ)
*NOTE: AULTERY is committed by a married woman who shall have
a sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man
who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married.

welling not aggravating in adultery when paramour also lives there
Rule is different if both the defendants (wife and paramour) and
offended party living in the same house, because the defendants had
a right to be in the house.
Aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence was properly
applied when offended husband took the paramour into his home,
furnished with food and lodging without charge, and treated him like
a son. (US v. ESTRITO)
Aggravating circumstance present in such case is abuse of
confidence, if the offender availed favorable position in which we has
placed by the very act of the injured party, grossly abusing the
confidence of latter in admitting into dwelling (US v. BARBICHO)
welling is not included in treachery
Nocturnity and abuse of superior strength are always included in qualifying
circumstance of treachery, dwelling CANNOT be included. ( People v. RUZOL)
Par. 4.
Abuse of 6onf|dence
-ex|sls or|y Wrer lre ollerded parly ras lrusled lre ollerder Wro |aler aouses sucr lrusl oy corr|ll|rg lre
cr|re.
-lre aouse ol corl|derce rusl oe a rears ol lac|||lal|rg lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re, lre cu|pr|l la||rg
advarlage ol lre ollerded parly's oe||el lral lre lorrer Wou|d rol aouse sa|d corl|derce
#equ|s|tes
1. %ral lre ollerded parly rad lrusled lre ollerder
2. %ral lre ollerder aoused sucr lrusl oy corr|ll|rg a cr|re aga|rsl lre ollerded parly
3. %ral lre aouse ol corl|derce lac|||laled lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re
Case: Peop|e vs. Varas|gar
A jea|ous |over. wro rad a|ready delerr|red lo |||| r|s sWeelrearl, |rv|led rer lo a r|de |r lre courlry. %re g|r|,
ursuspecl|rg ol r|s p|ars, Werl W|lr r|r. wr||e lrey Were |r lre car, lre jea|ous |over slaooed rer. ll Was re|d
lral lr|s aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce Was preserl.
6onf|dence does not ex|st
Case: Peop|e vs. Lucr|co
Facls: Aller pre||r|rary advarces ol lre rasler, lre lera|e servarl relused ard l|ed. %re rasler lo||oWed ard
aller calcr|rg up W|lr rer, lrreW rer or lre grourd ard corr|lled lre cr|re ol rape. wrer lre rasler raped lre
ollerded parly, sre rad a|ready |osl rer corl|derce |r r|r lror lre rorerl re rade ard |rdecerl proposa| ard
ollerded rer W|lr a ||ss.
le|d: %re corl|derce rusl lac|||lale lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re, lre cu|pr|l la||rg advarlage ol lre ollerded
parly's oe||el lral lre lorrer Wou|d rol aouse sa|d corl|derce. Nol aggraval|rg |r lr|s case.
Case: Peop|e vs. 8roca|
%rere |s ro aouse ol corl|derce |r allerpled rape Wrere or lre day ol lre cr|re, lre accused Was |r lre
corpary ol lre ollerded g|r|, rol oecause ol rer corl|derce |r r|r oul lrey Were parlrers |r a cerla|r ous|ress.
8pec|a| re|at|on of conf|dence between accused and v|ct|m
Case: Peop|e vs. 0rg
%rere |s rol aouse ol corl|derce Wrere lre deceased ard lre accused rappered lo oe logelrer oecause lre
lorrer |rv|led lre |aller r|grlc|uoo|rg ard lo or|rg W|lr r|r lre rorey lre |aller oWed lre lorrer.
etraya| of conf|dence |s not aggravat|ng
Case: Peop|e vs. Arlrur Cruro, CA
Facls: %re ollerded parly Was ||v|rg |r lre rouse ol lre accused, rer parerls rav|rg lrusled rer lo lre care ol
sa|d accused. 0re day, al aooul :30pr,, Wr||e lre ollerded parly Was slard|rg |r lrorl ol a slore Walcr|rg
sore cr||drer Wro Were p|ay|rg, lre accused approacred rer, loo| rer oy lre arr ard lorc|o|y |ed rer lo ar
|so|aled lo||el, r|dder lror lre puo||c v|eW oy sore la|| grasses ardorce |r lre spol re |rl|r|daled rer W|lr a
|r|le ard lrrougr lre use ol lorce ard v|o|erce succeeded |r rav|rg sexua| |rlercourse W|lr rer
le|d: %rere |s ro sroW|rg lral lre accused Was ao|e lo corr|l lre cr|re oy aous|rg lre corl|derce reposed |r
r|r oy lre ollerded parly. %re accused oelrayed lre corl|derce reposed |r r|r oy lre parerls ol lre g|r|. 8ul
lr|s |s rol ar aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce.
K||||ng of ch||d by an amah |s aggravated by abuse of conf|dence
Case: Peop|e vs. Ca||so
wrer lre ||||er ol lre cr||d |s lre doresl|c servarl ol lre lar||y ard |s sorel|res lre deceased cr||d's arar,
lre aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce ol grave aouse ol lrusl |s preserl.
The conf|dence between the offender and the offended party must be |mmed|ate and persona|
Abuse of conf|dence |nherent |n some fe|on|es
lr ra|versal|or, qua||l|ed lrell, eslala oy corvers|or or r|sappropr|al|or ard qua||l|ed seducl|or
Ungratefu|ness must be obv|ous, |.e. man|fest and c|ear
%ral lre acl oe corr|lled W|lr oov|ous urgralelu|ress
Case: Peop|e vs. F|oresca
Preserl |r lre case ol lre accused Wro ||||ed r|s lalrer-|r-|aW |r Wrose rouse re ||ved ard Wro parl|a||y
supporled r|r
Case: Peop|e vs. Lupargo
Preserl Wrere lre accused Was ||v|rg |r lre rouse ol lre v|cl|r Wro erp|oyed r|r as ar overseer ard |r crarge
ol carperlry Wor| ard rad lree access lo lre rouse ol lre v|cl|r Wro Was very ||rd lo r|r, r|s lar||y ard Wro
re|ped r|r so|ve r|s proo|er
Case: Peop|e vs. N|sra|
Preserl Wrere a secur|ly guard ||||ed a oar| oll|cer ard roooed a oar|
Case: Peop|e vs. 8aul|sla
Preserl Wrere lre v|cl|r Was sudder|y allac|ed |r lre acl ol g|v|rg lre assa||arls lre|r oread ard collee lor
orea|lasl. lrslead ol oe|rg gralelu| lo lre v|cl|r, al |easl oy do|rg r|r ro rarr, lrey loo| advarlage ol r|s
re|p|essress Wrer r|s 2 arrs Were used lor carry|rg lre|r lood, lrus preverl|rg r|r lror delerd|rg r|rse|l lror
lre sudder allac|
Th|s c|rcumstance ex|st when a v|stor comm|ts robbery or theft |n the house of h|s host
Par. S
Basis: Creater perversity of the offender shown by the place of the commission of the
crime, place must be respected
Par. S distinguished from Par. 2
1. !n both public authorities in performance of their duties
2. Par. 2: Public authorities performing their duties outside office, public authority should

not be the offended party
3. Par. S: Public authorites performing their duties !N their office, he may be the offended
party
: Place of commission of felony (Nalacanang or church) aggravating even if there are no
functions being held mere place! :)
: Chief Executive need not be in Nalacanang, presence alone in any place where crime is
committed is enough aggravating circumstance, even if he is not engaged in discharge of
duties
: But other public authorities must be actually engaged in performance of duty, there must
be some performance of public functions
: US vs. Punsalan A S D, plaintiff S defendant respectively in a civil case, trouble, left
courtroom S went into an adjoining room, A attacked D with a knife, killed on the spot, NOT
aggravating court had already adjourned when crime was committed, attack made in
adjoining room not in the place where ]OP was engaged in discharge of his duties
: aggravating when crime is committed in an electoral precint during election day
: cemetery NOT!!! a place dedicated to worship, Church is such place
: People vs. Anonuevo A shot victims inside church, People vs. Dumol unjust vexation, A
kissed girl inside church when a religious service was being solemnized
: intention to commit the crime when entering the place important
: People vs. ]aurigue A S D inside chapel, D placed hand on right thigh of A, A stabbed D
with fan knife, NOT aggravating no evidence that A had murder in her heart when she
entered the chapel
A8 6 1haL Lhe crlme be commlLLed (1) ln Lhe nlghLLlme or (2) ln an unlnhablLed place or (3) by a
band whenever such clrcumsLance may faclllLaLe Lhe commlsslon of Lhe offense
8ASlS @lme ooJ ploce of commlsslon of Lhe crlme and meoos ooJ woys employed
**consldered separaLely excepL l Lhey concur ln Lhe commlsslon of felony
8LCulSl1LS (WhaL Makes lL AggravaLlng)
1 When lL ocllltoteJ Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme or
2 When especlolly sooqbt ot by Lhe offender Lo |nsure the comm|ss|on of the cr|me or
for Lhe purpose of |mpun|ty
3 When Lhe offender took oJvootoqe tbeteo for Lhe purpose of lmpunlLy
**for Lhe purpose of lmpunlLy Lo prevenL Lhe accused from belng recognlzed or Lo secure hlmself
agalnsL deLecLlon and punlshmenL
eople v 8arredo
O Accused walLed for Lhe nlghL before commlLLlng robbery wlLh homlclde nlghLLlme ls
especlally soughL for
eople v 8arlng
O Accused was llvlng 130 meLers away from vlcLlm's house
O WalLed for nlghLfall Lo hlde hls ldenLlLy and faclllLaLe escape knowlng LhaL mosL barrlo folks
are already asleep or geLLlng ready Lo sleep aL 9pm
eople v Lungbos
O Accused llngered for almosL 3 hours ln Lhe evenlng aL Lhe resLauranL before carrylng ouL Lhelr
plan Lo rob lL
O nlghLLlme was purposely soughL for
eople v ALenclo
O Accused Lrled Lo ascerLaln LhaL Lhe occupanLs of Lhe house were acLually asleep
O lndlcaLed Lhe deslre Lo carry ouL Lhe ploL wlLh Lhe leasL deLecLlon or Lo lnsure lLs
consummaLlon wlLh a mlnlmum of reslsLance from Lhe lnmaLes of Lhe house
nlC11lML from sunseL Lo sunrlse from dusk 'Lll dawn darkness or nocLurnlLy LhaL enshrouds Lhe
slLuaLlon ln lLself ls n1 aggravaLlng lL becomes so when lL ls especlally soughL for by Lhe offender
or Laken advanLage of by hlm Lo faclllLaLe Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme or Lo lnsure hls lmpunlLy from
capLure crlme should sLarL and end aL nlghLLlme Lo be consldered l place ls lllumlnaLed by llghL
noL consldered as nlghLLlme
eople v velaga
O arkness of Lhe nlghL was merely lncldenLal Lo Lhe colllslon beLween Lwo vehlcles whlch
caused Lhe heaLed argumenL and Lhe evenLual sLabblng of Lhe vlcLlm
O nlghLLlme n1 aggravaLlng was noL purposely soughL for
eople v Luchlco
O Crlme was Lhe tesolt o o soccessloo o octs whlch Look place wlLhln Lhe perlod of Lwo hours
commenclng aL 3pm and endlng aL 7pm wlLhouL a momenL's lnLerrupLlon
O nlghLLlme n1 aggravaLlng
uS v owell
O A safe was Lhrown lnLo Lhe bay aL nlghL buL Lhe money was wlLhdrawn from Lhe Lreasury
durlng dayLlme
O Crlme of malversaLlon n1 aggravaLed by nlghLLlme crlme musL begln and be accompllshed
ln Lhe nlghLLlme
uS v aralso
O efendanLs dld noL lnLenLlonally seek Lhe cover of darkness for Lhe purpose of commlLLlng
murder slnce Lhey were carrylng a llghL of sufflclenL brllllance whlch made lL easy for Lhe
people nearby Lo recognlze Lhem
uS v 1ampacan
O Crlme of robbery wlLh homlclde commlLLed aL daybreak defendanL could be recognlzed
n1 aggravaLlng
eople v !oson
O Scene was lllumlnaLed wlLh Lhe llghL on Lhe sLreeL as well as ln Lhe vehlcle of whlch Lhe vlcLlm
was a passenger crlme of LhefL n1 aggravaLlng
eople v 8aLo
O nlghLLlme n1 purposely soughL for or Laken advanLage of
O Accused flred a L Laguna scene sufflclenLly llghLed clearly vlslble and recognlzable Lo Lhose
nearby
unlnA8l1L LACL one where Lhere are no houses aL all a place aL a conslderable dlsLance from
Lown or where Lhe houses are scaLLered aL a greaL dlsLance from each oLher consldered l Lhere ls
- teosoooble posslblllty o tbe vlctlm tecelvloq some belp ot osslstooce (1) Lo an easy easy and
oolotettopteJ occompllsbmeot of Lhelr crlmlnal deslgns (2) Lo lnsure cooceolmeot of Lhe offense
eople v ausLo amaso
O llllng done aL nlghLLlme and ln an unlnhablLed place a sugar planLaLlon abouL a hundred
meLers from Lhe nearesL house sugarcane ln Lhe fleld was Lall enough Lo obsLrucL Lhe vlew of
nelghbors and passersby
eople v 8ubla
O n a booco dlfflculL for vlcLlm Lo recelve any help buL easy for assallanL Lo escape
punlshmenL
eople v ALlLlw
O vlcLlm was found ln a sollLary place off Lhe road and hldden among Lhe Lrees and Lall grasses
on a hlll some 300 meLers away from Lhe Loll gaLe where help Lo Lhe vlcLlm was dlfflculL and
Lhe escape of Lhe accused seemed easy
eople v ng
O llllng done aL 8arrlo MakaLlpuno novallches Caloocan ClLy an lsolaLed place LhaL
resembled LhaL of an abandoned subdlvlslon
O lace was ldeal for burylng and kllllng Lhe vlcLlm n1 posslble for vlcLlm Lo recelve some
help
eople v lrlng
O Accused aLLacked and kllled a couple ln Lhelr house n1 aggravaLlng because n1 proved
Lo be unlnhablLed
eople v LuneLa
O ffended parLy casually meL accused dld noL Lake advanLage of place
8An at |east 4 MuS1 be AkMLD MuS1 have AC1LD 1CGL1nLk Lake dlrecL parL
Camara v valero
O eLlLloner ls a prlnclpal by lnducemenL n dlrecL parLlclpaLlon ln band
Par 7: The crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune
Basis - reference to the TIME of the commission of the crime
Reason
ebased form of criminality, in midst of a great calamity, instead of
lending aid, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their
misfortune to despoil them (US v. RORIGUEZ)
Example:
Fireman who commits robber in a burned house
Thief who immediately after a destructive typhoon steals
personal property from demolished houses
Offender must take advantage of calamity or misfortune
Accused was provoked by the offended party to commit the crime
during calamity or misfortune

May not be taken into consideration for purpose of increasing the
penalty
Accused did not take advantage of it
"Chaotic condition as aggravating circumstance
People v. CORPUS
"other calamities or misfortune refers to other conditions of
distress similar enumerated, such as `conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake or epidemic
Chaotic conditions after liberation is not included under this.
People v. PENJAN
Chaotic condition resulting the liberation of San Pablo was
considered calamity
People v. Arpa
evelopment of engine trouble at sea is misfortune
Not come within the context of the phrase "other calamity or
misfortune
Refers to other conditions of distress, namely conflagration,
shipwreck earthquake or epidemic
Chaotic conditions resulting from war of the liberation of the
Philippines during world war
NO condition of great calamity or misfortune existed when the
motor banca developed engine trouble
Par. 8
#equ|s|tes
1. %ral lre arred rer or persors loo| parl |r lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re d|recl|y or |rd|recl|y
2. %ral lre accused ava||ed r|rse|l ol lre|r a|d or re||ed upor lrer Wrer lre cr|re Was corr|lled
#u|e for the app||cat|on of th|s c|rcumstance
%re casua| preserce ol arred rer rear lre p|ace Wrere lre cr|re Was corr|llee does rol corsl|lule ar
aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce Wrer |l appears lral lre accused d|d rol ava|| r|rse|l ol lre|r a|d or re|y upor lrer lo
corr|l lre cr|re.
The armed men must take part d|rect|y or |nd|rect|y
Case: u.3. vs. Aoa|gar
%re accused slaooed lre deceased lo dealr.
'%re lesl|rory ol lre accused, corroooraled oy lral ol lre W|lress lor lre prosecul|or, |s lral lre cr|re Was
corr|lled oy lre accused a|ore, W|lroul ass|slarce lror aryore. ll |s lrue lral |r lre rouse rear lre p|ace
Wrere lre cr|re Was corr|lled, lrere Were 10 rer arred W|lr daggers ard 5 W|lroul arrs oul lrose rer loo|
ro parl, d|recl|y or |rd|recl|y, |r lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re, |l does rol appear lral lrey reard lre corversal|or
Wr|cr caused lre sudder delerr|ral|or or lre parl ol lre accused lo |||| lre deceased. %re accused lrerelore,
d|d rol ava|| r|rse|l lre|r a|d or re|y upor lrer lo corr|l lre cr|re.
Examp|es
Case: Peop|e vs. l|are
A, |r order lo gel r|d ol rer rusoard, secured lre serv|ces ol lre Voros oy pror|s|rg lrer reWards ard rad lrer
|||| rer rusoard. lr accordarce W|lr lre p|ar, lrey arred lrerse|ves W|lr c|uo, Werl lo lre rouse ol lre v|cl|r
ard c|uooed r|r lo dealr Wr||e A re|d a ||grled |arp. A a|so supp||ed lrer W|lr rope W|lr Wr|cr lo l|e rer
rusoard. lr lr|s case, A corr|lled parr|c|de 'W|lr lre a|d ol arred rer.
Case: Peop|e vs. 0rl|z
0 ard L Were proseculed lorr roooery W|lr rap. ll appeared lror lre|r Wr|ller corless|ors lral lrey rad
corpar|ors Wro Were arred Wrer lrey corr|lled lre cr|re. ll Was re|d lral lrey Were gu||ly ol roooery W|lr
rape W|lr lrea aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce ol a|d ol arred rer.
Excepl|ors:
1. %r|s aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce sra|| rol oe cors|dered Wrer oolr lre allac||rg parly allac|ed
Were equa||y arred
2. %r|s aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce |s rol preserl Wrer lre accused as We|| as lrose Wro cooperaled
W|lr r|r |r lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re acled urder lre sare p|ar ard lor lre sare purpose.
|th the a|d of armed men" d|st|ngu|shed from by a band"
8y a oard requ|res lral rore lrar lrree arred ra|elaclors sra|| rave acled logelrer |r lre corr|ss|or ol ar
ollerse.
A|d ol arred rer |s preserl ever |l ore ol lre ollerders rere|y re||ed or lre|r a|d, lor aclua| a|d |s rol
recessary.
A|d of armed men |s absorbed by emp|oyment of a band
Case: Peop|e vs. Varayao
ll lrere are 1 arred rer, a|d ol lre arred rer |s aosoroed |r erp|oyrerl ol a oard. ll lrere are lrree arred
rer or |ess, a|d ol arred rer ray oe lre aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce.
A|d of armed men |nc|udes armed women
Case: Peop|e vs. L|cop
A|d ol arred Worer |s aggraval|rg |r ||drapp|rg ard ser|ous |||ega| delerl|or
Case: Peop|e vs. v|||arueva
3ore use ol arrs or sroW ol arred slrerglr |s recessary lo guard a ||drap v|cl|r lo preverl or d|scourage
escape ard so |r a serse, |l ray oe jusl|y regarded as |rc|uded |r or aosoroed oy lre ollerse |lse|l.
Par. 3
Basis: greater perversity of the offender due to his inclination to crimes
Recidivist: 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 the RPC
Requisites:
1. Offender is on trial for an offense
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. 1st and 2nd offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense
: Controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the crime, not
required that at the time of the commission of the crime, the accused should've been
previously convicted by final judgement of another crime
: "At the time of his trial" general, from arraignment until rendering of judgment
: No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense
involved in the prior conviction, People vs. Baldera A convicted of robbery with homicide
committed on Dec. 23, 1347. He was previously convicted of theft committed on Dec. 30,
1347, not a recidivist
: ]udgment must be final, meaning
1. lapse of period for perfecting an appeal
2. sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
3. accused has waived in writing his right to appeal
4. accused has applied for probation
appeal must be taken w/in 1S days from promulgation or notice of judgment or order
appealed from
: present and previous crime must be embraced in the same title of this Code ex. robbery
and theft, homicide and physical injuries
: recidivism still taken into account no matter how many years have lapsed between 1st and
2nd crimes
: pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist (can still be
aggravating), amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects (thus not a recidivist)
: People vs. Lacao, Sr. once convicted of homicide but was pardoned, still a recidivist
A8 10 ke|terat|on or nab|tua||ty
8ASlS lncllnaLlon Lo crlmes
8LCul1LS
1 1haL Lhe accused ls n 18lAL for an offense
2 1haL he ptevloosly setves seoteoce for anoLher offense Lo whlch Lhe law aLLaches an
equal or greaLer penalLy or for Lwo or more crlme Lo whlch lL aLLaches a llghLer penalLy
3 1haL he ls convlcLed of Lhe nLW offense
kec|d|v|sm ke|terac|on
lL ls enough LhaL a flnal [udgmenL has been
rendered ln Lhe 1
sL
offense
necessary LhaL offender shall have setveJ oot
hls senLence for Lhe 1
sL
offense
8equlres LhaL Lhe offenses be lncluded ln Lhe
same LlLle of Lhe Code
revlous and subsequenL offense MuS1 noL be
embraced ln same LlLle of Lhe Code

u8 orms of 8epeLlLlon
1 8ecldlvlsm
2 8elLeraclon or ablLuallLy
3 MulLl8ecldlvlsm or hablLual ellnquency exttootJlooty oqqtovotloq cltcomstooce
when a person wlLhln Lhe perlod of 10yrs from Lhe daLe of hls release or lasL
convlcLlon of crlme ls found gullLy of any of sald crlmes a Lhlrd Llme or ofLener
4 Cuaslrecldlvlsm a person who shall commlL a felony A1L8 havlng been convlcLed by
flnal [udgmenL 8L8L beglnnlng Lo serve such senLence or whlle servlng Lhe same
shall be punlshed by Lhe maxlmum perlod of Lhe penalLy prescrlbed by law for Lhe new
felony
eople v vlllapando
O Accused convlcLed of homlclde less serlous physlcal ln[urles and sllghL physlcal ln[urles
O 8ecord dld noL dlsclose lf accused was prevlously punlshed n relLeraclon or hablLuallLy
eople v uranLe
O efendanL whlle servlng senLence ln 8lllbld for one crlme sLruck and sLabbed Lhe foreman of
Lhe brlgade of prlsoners
O unlshed wlLh Lhe maxlmum perlod of Lhe penalLy prescrlbed by Lhe law for Lhe new felony
Par 11: That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, rewards
or promise
Basis - based on greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating
power itself
Aggravating circumstance presupposes the concurrence of two or more
offenders
AC is present, there must be 2 or more principals
One who gives or offers the price or promise

One who accepts it
Both are principals since the former directly induces the latter to
commit the crime, while latter commits it
Paragraph applicable to one who gave the price or reward?
When aggravating circumstance is present, it affects not only person
who received the price or reward, but also the person who gave it.
(US v. PARRO)
The established rule in Spanish jurisprudence: aggravating
circumstance of price, reward or promise affects equally the offeror
and the acceptor (People v. ALINCASTRE)
US v. Parro
P procured as ignorant man to kill the brother and grandniece
of P for reward of P60. Where Ignorant man, following
instruction, killed them.
Murder was induced of the price committed. Price was a
qualifying aggravating circumstance. (US v. PARRO)
Crime was committed for hire or rewards can be applied to the
instigator of the crime (US v. GAMAO)
PEOPLE v. TALLEO and TIMBREZA
Aggravating circumstance of price and reward cannot be
considered against the other accused, for reason that it was not
she who committed the crime.
If price, reward or promise is alleged in the information as
qualifying aggravating circumstance, it shall be considered
against all the accused, being an element of the crime of
murder.
In this case, it was considered a generic aggravating
circumstance only, since it was not alleged to qualify the crime
to murder.
Aggravating circumstance where crime was hired or reward, can
be applied to the instigator or the crime
Price, reward or promise must be for the purpose of inducing another to perform
the deed
Evidence show that one of the accused used money or other valuable
consideration for the purpose of inducing another to perform the
deed. (US v. GAMAO)
If without previous promise, given voluntarily after the crime had
been committed as expression of appreciation for the sympathy and
aid show by the accused, shall NOT be taken into consideration for
purpose of increasing the penalty (US v. FLORES)
People v. PAREES
Evidence show, there was an offer of award by appellant
Pascual Bartolome, and a promise by appellant Santos
But the evidence is not conclusive that appellant Ben Perlas
participated in commission of robbery by reason of such reward
or promise
Appeared that even before the accused (Perlas) met with
Pascual and other municipal officers made promise, the other
accused had already decided to commit the robbery
The reward and the promise must have given the other accused,
including Perlas, further encouragement in commission of
robbery
However, for this aggravating circumstance, to be considered against the
person, the inducement must be the primary consideration for the commission
of crime by him.
Par. 12
Un|ess used by the offender as a means to accomp||sh a cr|m|na| purpose, any of the c|rcumstances |n
paragraph 12 cannot be cons|dered to |ncrease the pena|ty or to change the nature of the offense
wrer arolrer aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce a|ready qua||l|es lre cr|re, ary ol lrese aggraval|rg c|rcurslarces
sra|| oe cors|dered as gerer|c aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce or|y
hen there |s no actua| des|gn to k||| a person |n burn|ng a house, |t |s p|a|n arson even |f a person |s
k|||ed
Case: Peop|e vs. Palerro
wrer lre cr|re |rlerded lo oe corr|lled |s arsor ard soreoody d|es as a resu|l lrereol, lre cr|re |s s|rp|y
arsor ard lre acl resu|l|rg |r lre dealr ol lre persor |s rol ever ar |rdeperderl cr|re ol ror|c|de, |l oe|rg
aosoroed
ll oearn resu|reo as a oonsequenoe ol arson oomm|rreo on any ol rne properr|es ano unoer any ol rne
o|roumsranoes menr|oneo |n /rr|o|es J20 ro J26, rne oourr sna|| |mpose rne oearn pena|ry.
ll lre ollerder rad lre |rlerl lo |||| lre v|cl|r, ourred lre rouse Wrere lre |aller Was, ard lre v|cl|r d|ed as a
corsequerce, lre cr|re |s rurdered, qua||l|ed oy lre c|rcurslarce lal lre cr|re Was corr|lled oy rears ol
l|re.
hen used as a means to k||| another person, the cr|me |s murder
%re |||||rg ol lre v|cl|r oy rears ol sucr c|rcurslarces as |rdurdal|or, l|re, po|sor or exp|os|or qua||l|es |l lor
rurder.
1. 8y rears ol l|re
Case: Peop|e vs. 8urrs
Facls: %re accused rad sel l|re lo ar auloroo||e urder a ou||d|rg, W|lr lre resu|l lral lre ed|l|ce
Was corsured oy l|re. 0re ol lre |rrales ol lre rouse per|sred |r lre corl|agral|or
le|d: lr order lo corsl|lules rurder, lrere srou|d oe ar aclua| des|gr lo |||| ard lral lre use ol l|re srou|d oe
purpose|y adopled as a rears lo lral erd.
ll rne purpose ol rne exp|os|on, |nunoar|on, l|re or po|son |s ro k||| a preoererm|neo person, rne or|me oomm|rreo |s
muroer. Dnoe any ol rnese o|roumsranoe |s a||eeo |n rne |nlormar|on ro qua||ly rne ollense, |r snou|o nor oe
oons|oereo a ener|o aravar|n o|roumsranoe lor rne purpose ol |noreas|n rne pena|ry, oeoause |r |s an
|nrera| e|emenr ol rne ollense.


Case: Peop|e vs. 8ersaoa|
A rouse Was sel or l|re aller lre |||||rg ol lre v|cl|r, lrere Wou|d oe 2 separale cr|res ol arsor ard rurder or
ror|c|de. %rere Wou|d oe ro aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce oy rears ol l|re.
2. 8y rears ol exp|os|or
ll ore ol lre peop|e |r lre rouse Wrere a rard grerade Was lrroWr resu|l|rg lo lre Wa|| ol lre rouse oe|rg
daraged ard erdarger|rg lre ||ves ol lre |rrao|larls, oul lrere |s ro |rlerl lo |||| or lre parl ol lre ollerder, |l
W||| oe a cr|re |rvo|v|rg deslrucl|or oul lre pera|ly W||| oe dealr.
8ul |l lrere |s |rlerl lo |||| ard exp|os|or |s used oy lre ollerder lo accorp||sr |l, |l |s rurder |l lre v|cl|r d|es as
a d|recl corsequerce lrereol.
3. 8y rears ol dera||rerl ol |ocorol|ve
urder Arl. 330 Wr|cr del|res ard pera||zes lre cr|re ol darage lo rears ol corrur|cal|or, dera||rerl ol cars,
co|||s|or or acc|derl rusl resu|l lror darage lo a ra||Way, le|erapr or le|eprore ||res.
8ul lr|s |s W|lroul prejud|ce lo lre cr|r|ra| ||ao|||ly lor olrer corsequerces ol cr|r|ra| acl
1. 0arage lo rears ol corrur|cal|or - resu|l ol lre dera||rerl ol cars, or|y properly |s daraged
2. Corp|ex cr|re ol darage lo rears ol corrur|cal|or W|lr ror|c|de - dealr ol a persor resu|ls
W|lroul |rlerl lo |||| or lre parl ol lre ollerder
3. Vurder - |l lre dealr ol a persor resu|led ard lrere Was |rlerl lo |||| or lre parl ol lre ollerder
1. wrer lre aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce |s |rc|uded oy lre |aW |r del|r|rg a cr|re, |l sra|| rol oe
la|er |rlo cors|deral|or lor lre purpose ol |rcreas|rg lre pera|ly
C|rcurslarces ol l|re, exp|os|or ard dera||rerl ol a |ocorol|ve ray oe parl ol del|r|l|or ol parl|cu|ar cr|re, sucr
as arsor, cr|re |rvo|v|rg deslrucl|or ard darages ard ooslrucl|or lo rears ol corrur|cal|or.
Par. 12 d|st|ngu|shed from par. 7
urder par. 12, lre cr|re |s corr|lled oy means ol ary ol sucr acls |rvo|v|rg greal Wasle or ru|r. urder par. Z,
lre cr|re |s corr|lled or lre occas|on ol a ca|ar|ly or r|slorlure.
Par. 13
Basis: ways of committing the crime, evident premeditation implies deliberate planning of
the act before execution
: People vs. Ompad Pastor Labutin killing Simplicio Tapulado, plan deduced from outward
circumstances, drunk, breaking out plan to coaccused, supplying ammunition, always near
triggermen at the critical moments
: US vs. Camano A attempted to induce Batolinao to kill the priest, offered Patpat PS0 to
kill the priest, presided meeting held in his own house where it was agreed that the priest
should be killed and selected nephew to do it
Essence: 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 a calm judgment, may not be appreciated when any proof as to how and when the
plan to kill was made or what time elapsed before it was carried out is absent, not
appreciated when it is a result of rising tempers or made in the heat of anger, !T NUST BE
A DEL!BERATE PLAN
: there must be Ev!DENCE in showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his
intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was
actually perpetrated, premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected
Requisites:
1. Time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. Act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution allows reflection and
overcoming of conscience
: US vs. Nanalinde A directed by Datto Nupuck to go huramentado S kill the two persons
he would meet in the town, if successful, Nupuck would give him a pretty woman in return,
provided himself with kris concealed in banana leaves, travelled for a day S a night from his
home, upon reaching town he attacked Spaniard S Chinaman
: People vs. Renegado A told coemployee and security guard that he was going to kill
Lira, asked another security guard if Lira was at the dance, confided to Nrs. Tan that if he
had seen Lira the night before he would've killed him, Nonday morning he armed himself w/
knife, stabbed Lira from behind
: People vs. Ong frequent meetings in Barrio Fiesta to discuss and layout the plan,
securing materials such as rope, icepick, flannel cloth, flashlight, shovel
: People vs. Benito .22 caliber revolver, followed victim and shot him 8 times suddenly
: People vs. Nojica D slapped A, asked him to kneel down, A avenge humiliation, 2 days
later A looked inside bus for D, A found D in jeep and stabbed him
: The date and time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential lapse
of time for 3rd requisite is computed from said date and time
: Premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of
time, notorious and manifest, a result of determination, meditation and reflection before
commission
2nd requisite exists when:
1. crime was carefully planned by the offenders
2. offenders previously prepared the means

3. grave was prepared
4. repeated statements that the hour of reckoning of the victim would arrive S arming
themselves w/ deadly weapons
S. sharpening of bolo before the crime
6. 3 times attempted to take the life of D, to marry his widow
7. repeatedly plotted the commission of murder, on at least two occasions made preliminary
efforts to carry it out
Nere threats w/out 2nd element does not show evident premeditation:
1. threat to kill w/o evidence is construed as a casual remark
2. mere expression of determination to kill
3. People vs. Sarmiento A plowing field, D unexpectedly appeared, no showing that A
prepared beforehand to kill D
: !llfeeling or grudge alone not proof of evident premeditation, People vs. Nanangan 12
days before killing, A tried to injure D, desisted due to intervention of 3rd persons, evidence
does not show the steps A took thereafter, evidence inconclusive, People vs. Nanzano
after lunch time A mauled S detained D, at 4 pm D was killed
Sufficient lapse of time:
1. People vs. Lasafin A had 3 days' time to meditate, not prompted by impulse of the
moment
2. People vs. Nojica
3. People vs. Dosal A had 1 whole day to make preparations
4. US vs. Cil more than 1/2 day for meditation and reflection
S. People vs. Lazada 4 hours intervened between rage and aggression of A
6. People vs. Nostoles D delivered only 100 bundles of corn at 3 pm, A armed himself w/
bolo and lance at 7 pm, went to D's house and killed him, 3 1/2 hours of lapse
7. People vs. Berdida A apprehended v at 10 pm, crime consummated at 1 am
: three hours or less considered sufficient lapse of time, at least one hour before
perpetration of crime is sufficient
: Offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the
meaning and consequences of what he planned to do, an interval long enough for his
conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme! Decision is a result
of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt.
: There must be sufficient time between the outward acts and the actual commission of the
crime, US vs. Buncad mere fact that A was lying in wait for his victim just before the
attack not sufficient, must prove that he was lying in wait for a substantial period of time,
US vs. Nercoleta A borrowed bolo for purpose of committing the crime early in the
morning, lying in wait for sometime before attacking victim
: Conspiracy generally presupposes meditation, must be directly established. !f merely
implied, not aggravating.
: Price/reward/promise may be taken into consideration !NDEPENDENTLY of premeditation
there is no incompatibility, premeditation ABSORBED by reward or promise 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
: Premeditation may not be appreciated in Error in Personae but may be appreciated even if
a person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that there was
determination to kill not only the intended victim but also any one who may help him
: Not necessary that the accused planned to kill a particular person
1. US vs. Nanalinde
2. US vs. Zalsos and Ragmac A decided to kill at first opportunity whatever individual he
should meet from the town of Nacabebe, attributed illness of sons (cholera) from the people
of Nacabebe
3. Ceneral attack upon a village, having been premeditated and planned, the killing of any
individual during the attack is aggravating (premeditated)
Reasons for difference in rulings:
1. Error in Personae: premeditated on killing another person but succeeded in killing the
wrong one it cannot be said that he premeditated in killing the actual victim
2. !f offender premeditated in killing ANY person, it is aggravating whoever is killed by him
is contemplated in his premeditation, also applies when victim belongs to the class
designated by the accused
: US vs. Caranto victim undetermined, threats made by A who lost a fishing boat that
either he or the thief would be turned into a ghost, NO evident premeditation, merely a
threat w/c was not of a direct and specific character
: Evident premeditation inherent in robbery, aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
premeditation includes killing the victim
A8 14 1haL crafL fraud or dlsgulse be employed
8ASlS means employed ln Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme
**characLerlzed by Lhe lnLellecLual or menLal means Lo whlch Lhe crlmlnal resorLs Lo carry ouL hls
deslgn
Craft lnvolves lnLellecLual Lrlckery and cunnlng on Lhe parL of Lhe accused done ln order n1 Lo
arouse Lhe susplclon of Lhe vlcLlm
eople v Zea
O 8egular drlver preLended Lo be slck was relleved by anoLher drlver who drove Lhe vlcLlm Lo
Lhe house of Lhe regular drlver who sald LhaL he was already well and wenL Lo Lhe laLLer's
house
O 8egular drlver and coaccused shoL vlcLlm durlng Lhe Lrlp
uS v Campona
O 4 men deLermlned Lo klll a man ln an unlnhablLed place so LhaL Lhe crlme wlll noL be easlly
dlscovered lnvlLed vlcLlm Lo go an a [ourney Lo a dlsLanL mounLaln
O reLended Lo look for a molave Lree whlch flowed a llquld supposed Lo have a pecullar vlrLue
O Murder wlLh aggravaLlng clrcumsLance of crafL lncrease ln penalLy
eople v aos
O Accused preLended Lo be a bona flde passenger ln Lhe Laxlcab drlven by Lhe deceased ln
order noL Lo arouse hls susplclon and Lhen kllllng hlm crafL
eople v 1lmbol
O Accused assumlng poslLlon of auLhorlLy preLendlng Lo be a member of Cl Lo galn enLrance
enabllng hlm Lo be wlLh Lhe offended parLy alone
O CommlLLed acLs of lasclvlousness agalnsL her
eople v Saqulng
O efendanLs preLended Lo be consLabulary soldlers Lo galn enLry lnLo Lhe place of Lhe vlcLlms
eople v 8agLas
O Accused brushed dlrL on panLs of offended parLy caLchlng hls aLLenLlon whlle Lhe confederaLe
of Lhe accused grabbed Lhe walleL of Lhe offended parLy from behlnd
eople v Mallarl
O efendanL asked offended parLy change of a php10 blll when offended parLy Look ouL Lhe
walleL defendanL snaLched lL
eople v Cuy
O Accused used lnnocenLlooklng chocolaLe candles noL Lo arouse susplclon LhaL lL conLalned
deleLerlous drugs for Lhe purpose of weakenlng her reslsLance ln order Lo sexually assaulL her
eople v Molleda
O Accused wlLh murder ln Lhelr hearLs preLended Lo accompany vlcLlm ln a frlendly manner ln
golng home ln order Lo lure hlm lnLo a false sense of securlLy and maklng hlm unmlndful of
Lhe Lragedy LhaL would befall hlm one of Lhem placlng hls hands on hls shoulder
eople v 8odrlquez
O AppellanL decelved Lhe vlcLlm lnLo comlng lnLo her aparLmenL under Lhe preLexL of
accompanylng Lhe vlcLlm Lo Lhe bank and played on Lhe vlcLlm's seemlng fondness of hlm
O Lured her lnLo Lhe Lhlrd floor of Lhe aparLmenL where appellanL commlLLed Lhe crlme (JlJot
soy wbot ctlme lt ls)
eople v 1longson
O ffender never lnLended Lo genulnely enLer lnLo LransacLlon of purchase of sale wlLh Lhe
owner of Lhe [eep Lo Lhe offender Lhe deed of sale belng a sham as he dld noL pay Lhe prlce
Lhereof
O 1he fraud Lakes Lhe place of Lrespass ln Lhe Laklng of Lhe [eep lnvolved ln Lhe crlme of
quallfled LhefL
eople v Cunanan
O Accused and hls companlons came ouL from behlnd a paLch of bamboo Lrees dld noL
camouflage Lhelr hosLlle lnLenLlons aL Lhe lnclplency of Lhe aLLack
O 1hey announced Lhelr presence aL Lhe scene of Lhe crlme wlLh shouLs and gunshoLs
raud Jltect loJocemeot by lnsldlous words or machlnaLlon used Lo lnduce Lhe vlcLlm Lo acL ln a
manner whlch would enable Lhe offender Lo carry ouL hls deslgn


uS v Abellnde
O Accused lnduced Lhelr vlcLlms Lo glve up Lhelr arms upon a promlse LhaL no harm should be
done unLo Lhem and when Lhe laLLer gave up Lhelr arms Lhe former aLLacked and kllled Lhem
uS v 8undal
O Where Lhe defendanLs upon a preLexL of wanLlng Lo buy a boLLle of wlne lnduced Lhe vlcLlm
Lo go down Lo Lhe lower sLorey of hls dwelllng where Lhe wlne was sLored enLered lL when
Lhe door was opened Lo hlm and Lhere commenced Lhe assaulL whlch ended ln hls deaLh
eople v naplll
O ne of Lhe accused shouLed from Lhe ouLslde LhaL Lhey wanLed Lo buy clgareLLes whlch
lnduced Lhe owner Lo open Lhe klLchen for Lhem and one of Lhem sald LhaL Lhey wanLed Lo
drlnk some waLer whlch also paved Lhe way for Lhelr lnLruslon ln Lhe house
O nce lnslde Lhey commlLLed Lhe crlme of robbery wlLh rape
O 1here was crafL bot sloce octs ote slmllot to u5 v 8ooJol lt sboolJ be tooJ
eople v e Leon
O 1he accused sLepfaLher of Lhe offended parLy Look advanLage of Lhe absence of Lhe glrl's
moLher wenL Lo Lhe house and Look Lhe young glrl away Lelllng Lhe laLLer LhaL she was Lo be
Laken Lo her godmoLher's house
O 1he accused Look Lhe glrl Lo anoLher house where he ravlshed her rape wlLh Lhe use of
fraud
eople v Sallllng
O Accused preLended LhaL he had Lhe lnLenLlon of buylng chlckens ln able Lo enLer Lhe house of
Lhe vlcLlm
O Calned enLrance Lo Lhe house wlLh consenL Lhrough Lrlckery of decelL
D|sgu|se resorLlng Lo any devlce Lo conceal ldenLlLy
uS v Cofrada
O efendanL blackened hls face ln order LhaL he could noL be recognlzed aL Lhe Llme he
commlLLed Lhe crlme
eople v lrlng
O efendanL covered hls face wlLh a handkerchlef before commlLLlng Lhe crlme
eople v Sonsana
O efendanLs used handkerchlef Lo cover hls face buL was sLlll recognlzable no dlsgulse
eople v CabaLo
O 1he accused wlLh Lwo oLhers wore masks Lo cover Lhelr faces Lhe mask subsequenLly fell
down pavlng Lhe way of one's ldenLlflcaLlon dlsgulse sLlll appllcable
eople v Conzales
O efendanL lllegally wore a ConsLabulary unlform
eople v Adamos
O Accused used an assumed name ln Lhe publlcaLlon of a llbel dlsgulse
eople v 8eyes
O Accused was wearlng some sorL of mask and sunglasses dld noL consLlLuLe dlsgulse
O Accused was readlly cognlzable because hls face could easlly be seen LogeLher wlLh Lhe
ldenLlfylng feaLure of hls musLache
uS v 8odrlguez
O Some of Lhe offenders had cloLhs wrapped around Lhelr heads was noL used as a dlsgulse
buL was raLher Lhe cusLom of Lhelr counLry ln whlch Lhey had been reared
uS v Cuysayco
O Wlfe used husbands cloLhes and haL Lo dlsgulse herself before she kllled Lhe deceased was
noL consldered aggravaLlng bec she dld lL for fear of belng aLLacked on Lhe way
Par 15: That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength or (2) means
be employed to weaken the defense.
Meaning of "advantage be taken
To take advantage of superior strength - use purposely excessive
force out of proportion to means of defense available to the person
attacked (People v. CABALING)
Illustration of no advantage of superior strength
1. One who attacks with PASSION and OBFUSCATION does not take
advantage of physical strength
2. Not apply when QUARREL arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at the time when the aggressor and his victim were engaged
against each other as man to man (US v. BAINES)
in these 2 cases, the offender may or might have superior strength
but they do not take advantage of it

Illustration of abuse of superior strength:
1. A strong man has ill-treated a child, an old or decrepit person or one
weakened by disease or where a persons physical strength has been
overcome by the use of drugs or intoxicants between the offended
and offender (US v. EVELA)

2. People v. Navarra

eceased Tomas Martir, unarmed, under the influence of liquor,
and was much smaller than Navarra.
Navarras attack came after Tomas was pushed to wall by
Antonio Santiago
Virgilio Cruz fired at him
Followed by 2 other shots from Navarra
Aggressors were police officers armed, and deceased was
defenseless and under influence of liquor
Clear case of abuse of superiority is present

3. Victim who died was an innocent and tender baby, barely six months
old, and the wounded children were aged 5 and 12 years old -
because of the marked difference of physical strength between the
offended and offender (People v. GATCHO)
hen the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is abuse of
superior strength
Use of superior strength should not be considered even if all accused
delivered blows upon the victim, because the attack was made on the
victim, alternately, one after the other (People v. NARCISO)
Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a woman with weapon.
Attack made by man with a deadly weapon an unarmed and
defenseless woman - abuse of that superiority which his sex and the
weapon used in the act afforded him, and woman was unable to
defense herself (US v. CAMILOY)
Illustration:
a. Accused attacked an unarmed 4 feet, 11 inch girl with a knife -
abused the superiority which his sex and weapon employed afforded
him, and the deceased would be unable to defend herself (People v.
BRANA)
b. Accused was armed while victim, a married woman was unarmed and
she guilelessly approached the group of accused without the lease
inkling that any harm would befall her, when she was shot in the back
after her hands were tied behind her - abuse of superiority employed
in liquidating her (People v. CLEMENTER)
c. Female victim was stabbed to death. 3 men had earlier invaded her
house. Husband was away fishing with husband of sister and who was
her only companion and her sisters one year old son. - attack by
three men against a helpless and defenseless woman constitute
abuse of strength (People v. PATINGA)
o abuse of superior strength in parricide against wife
Abuse of superior strength is INHERENT in the crime of parricide
where the husband kills the wife. - generally accepted that husband
is physically stronger than wife (People v. GALAPIA)
%hat the victim is a woman is inherent in parricide
Not be applied in case of husband who kills his wife for the reason
that SEX is inherent in the crime of parricide. (People v. GALAPIA)
Evidence of relative physical strength necessary
Mere fact that one person was attacked by two aggressors does not
constitute this aggravating circumstance, if relative physical strength
of parties does not appear. There must be evidence that the accused
were physically stronger and that they abused such superiority
(People v. BUSTOS)
Mere fact that being a superiority of numbers is NOT sufficient to
bring the case within AC (US v. EVELA)
Illustration:
a. Records of the case are bereft of any information with respect to the
physical conditions of both the accused and the victims. - abuse of
superior CANNOT be considered (People v. CABATO)
b. There was error in appreciating the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. There is no evidence of the respective or joint participation
of the 2 accused in assaulting the victim, much less that they took
advantage of their superior strength (People v. MALOLOY-ON)
c. The fact that there were 2 male person who attacked the victim does
not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of
superior strength there being no proof of relative strength of
aggressors and victim (People v. CARPIO)
When abuse of superior strength is aggravating
Aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on
AGE, SIZE and STRENGTH OF PARTIES.
Considered when there is NOTORIOUS INEQUALITY of forces between
the victim and aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength

notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken
advantage of by him in commission of crime (People v. CARPIO)
Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior strength
US v. TANOC
Greater number of the assaulting party was considered by SC in
determining the circumstance of superior strength
Noted that in those cases, accused were armed

People v. VERZO
efendants acted with abuse of superior strength, whereas 3 of
them were wielding bolos
Victim was unarmed and trying to flee
Crime committed was murder, qualified by abuse of superior
strength

People v. ANTONIO
Three person armed with bolos attacked another who was
armed with revolver
No abuse of superior strength
Strength were almost balanced, revolver being effective than
bolos

People v. YBANEZ
No abuse of superior strength where the accused did not
cooperate in such a wat to se secure advantage from combined
strength.
Accused did not conspire to kill the victim implies that they do
not jointly exploit their superior strength
Numerical superiority does NOT always mean abuse of
superiority
Abuse of superior strength by numerical superiority
1. People v. BOYLES
2 accused jumped on the victim as he was wrestling with their
companion who has remained at large
They had him outnumbered that one of the accused delivered the
fatal blow

2. People v. CASILLAR
Assailants were four and were armed with bladed instruments
eceased was alone, unarmed and taken by surprise
Abuse of strength was properly considered

3. People v. VELEZ
3 assailants are brothers
Alejandro armed with a bolo (sondang) lay in wait for the victim and
his brother
They encountered him as they were fleeing after Joaquin had
threatened them
Victim retreated and his brother took refuge in grassy place, Joaquin
appeared from behind, holding a barbed harpoon (gata-ao) which
plunged to victims back and then tried to pull it out
While Joaquin trying to extricate the harpoon, which got stuck
because of hooks, Alejandro stabbed the victim with his sondang
And when he fell to the ground, Antonieto, also armed with sondang,
slashed the prostate victim in abdomen
Victim died due to numerous wounds
Abuse of superiority is aggravating - 3 assailants took advantage of
combined strength to overpower victim

4. There were several assailants who literally ganged up on the victim.
He had to flee because he cannot cope with successive and
simultaneous assaults of his assailants
Even armed policeman, who was present in the scene of fight, could
not break the because the victim had several adversaries
Police did was fire his carbine into air
Marked disparity between strength of aggressors and victim,
wounded him repeatedly and left him sprawled on the ground
Assailants cooperated to derive advantage from combined strength
and insure the victims death

5. People v. Garcia
4 persons attacked an unarmed victim but there was no proof as to
how the attack commenced and treachery was not proven
Fact of 4 assailants would constitute superiority

6. People v. IMANONON
2 accused both armed with knife, had cooperated in a way as to
secure advantage from their secured strength and took turns in
stabbing the victim who was unarmed

7. People v. MALANGBAYAN
Accused together with co-assailants, unfortunately have not
apprehended, took advantage of their superior strength, when the
four of them,
Two of whom were armed with bladed weapons, surrounded and
stabbed the unarmed, helpless and unsuspecting victim

8. Victim, unarmed was simultaneously attacked by the two appellants
and third accused who has remained at large all of them with
weapons, they took advantage of superior strength

9. People v. MOA
Number of assailants and the firearms and bolos which they used on
the victim and the aggressor

10. People v. PENONES
4 accused, relatively of regular, medium build and size
2 armed with guhi (piece of bamboo, sharpened or pointed at one
end) and stone
Other 2 with Indian arrows
4 are carrying bolos inside scabbard and tied to waist
Victim was unarmed, have companions but did not help him
There is abuse of superior strength when weapon used is out of proportion to
the defense available to the offended party
Abuse of superior strength is present not only when offenders enjoy
numerical superiority or there is a notorious inequality of force
between victim and aggressor, but also when the offender uses a
powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available
to offended party. (People v. Padilla)
Simultaneous attack by 2 people with revolver against a defenseless person is
aggravated by superior strength
When two persons took part in the crime armed with bolos or
revolvers and made a simultaneous attack upon defenseless person,
AC of abuse of superiority strength should be considered (US v.
BANAGALE) - two defendants are guilty as principals
There is no abuse of superior strength when one acted as principal and the other
two as accomplices
Court finds that one of the accused committed the crime as principal
and the two as accomplices, abuse of superiority strength cannot be
taken into consideration - would be INCONSISTENT
AC from the mere fact that more than one person participated in the
offense appear that the accused cooperated together, in ways
designed to weaken the defense.
This would make them guilty in the character of principals (People v.
Cortez )
When there is allegation of treachery, superior strength is absorbed
Like nighttime, superior strength is absorbed and inherent in
treachery (People v. MOBE)
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in coercion and forcible abduction,
when greatly in excess of that required to commit the offense
Abuse of superior strength may be present in coercion (Art 286) and
forcible abduction(Art 342) (People v. FERNANO)
Commission of crime of coercion and forcible abduction presupposes
superiority of force on the part of the offenders, yet when the
strength availed of is greatly in excess of that required for the
realization of the offense, as where offenders were very much
superior to complainant individually and collectively (People v.
AYUG) - abuse of superior strength considered to increase penalty
Other crimes which abuse of superior strength is aggravating
Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in illegal detention (art 267
and 268), where 6 person took and carried away the victim from his
house (US v. SANTIAGO)
In robbery with rape committed by 5 armed person (People v.
MACAYA)
Multiple rape committed by 4 men (US v. CAMILOY)
Robbery with homicide committed by 3 men (People v. BOYLES)
The circumstance of "by a band and that of "abuse of superior strength
distinguished
Circumstance of abuse of superiority was withdrawn by the
prosecution of the ground that since offense robbery with homicide
was committed by a band, the element of CUARILLA necessarily
absorbs the circumstance of abuse of superior strength - withdrawal
was ill-advised since the circumstance of ban and abuse of superiority
are separate and distinct legal concepts
Element of band appreciated when the offense is committed by more
than 3 armed malefactors regardless of the comparative strength of
the victim of victims.
Indispensable components of CUARILLA:
At least 4 malefactors
All of them armed
Gravamen of abuse of superiority is the taking advantage by the
culprits of their collective strength to overpower their relatively
weaker victim or victims - not the number of aggressors but their
relative physical might vis--vis the offended party
AC of commission of crime by a band was correctly appreciated: a
band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least 4 malefactors who are all
armed, when there were only 3 perpetrators and 2 weapons, a
kitchen knife and a dagger - did not constitute a band (People v. GA)
Aggravating circumstance absorbing band
Abuse of superiority absorbs cuadrilla
If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band, then it is
reasonable to hold that band should not be treated separately and
distinct from abuse of superior strength
Two circumstances have the same essence which is the utilization of
the combined strength of the assailant to overpower the victim and
consummate the killing (People v. MERANA)
Aggravating circumstance of by a band is absorbed in treachery
(People v. AMPO - AN)
Means employed to weaken defense
In case where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a cloak
over the head and he wounds or kills him (US v. EVELA)
One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand or dirt
upon the latters eyes and then wounds or kills him - employs means
which weaken the defense of his opponent (People v. SIAOTONG)
Garand rifle was used in killing the victim, does not necessarily raise
the aggravating circumstance of employing means to weaken the
defense (People v. TUNHAWAN)
Intoxicating the victim to weaken defense

Exist also when offender who had the intention to kill the victim,
made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially weakening the
latters resisting power (People v. UCUSIN)
If the state of intoxication is such that the victim cannot put up any sort of
defense - treachery
In intoxicated state, it was impossible for the victim to put up any
sort of resistance at the time he was attacked, treachery may be
considered (People v. UCUSIN)
Applicable only to crimes against persons, etc.
This crime is applicable to crimes against persons, and sometimes
against person and property, such as robbery with physical injury of
homicide
*NOTE: In People v. GUY - employing means to weaken the defense
is NOT AC, it is craft.

Means to weaken the defense absorbed in treachery
AC of employing to weaken defense is absorber by treachery (People
v. TUNHAWAN)
Par. 1
Hean|ng of treachery
%rere |s lreacrery Wrer lre ollerder corr|ls ary ol lre cr|res aga|rsl persor, erp|oy|rg rears, relrods or
lorrs |r lre execul|or lrereol Wr|cr lerd d|recl|y ard spec|a||y lo |rsure |ls execul|or, W|lroul r|s| lo r|rse|l
ar|s|rg lror lre delerse Wr|cr lre ollerded parly r|grl ra|e.
%reacrery rears lral lre ollerded parly Was rol g|ver lre opporlur|ly lo ra|e a delerse.
Case: Peop|e vs. Rey
%reacrery allerded lre srool|rg ol lre deceased. %re allac| Was sudder, urexpecled, W|lroul Warr|rg ard
W|lroul g|v|rg lre v|cl|r ar opporlur|ly lo delerd r|rse|l or repe| lre aggress|or, as, |r lacl, lre deceased d|d
rol serse ary darger lral re Wou|d oe srol oy lre assa||arl as lrere Was ro grudge or r|surderslard|rg
oelWeer lrer.
#u|es regard|ng treachery
1. App||cao|e or|y lo cr|res aga|rsl persor
2. Vears, relrods, or lorrs reed rol |rsure accorp||srrerl ol cr|re
3. %re rode ol allac| rusl oe corsc|ous|y adopled
App||cab|e on|y to cr|me aga|nst persons
|t |s not necessary that the mode of attack |nsures the consummat|on of offense
%re lreacrerous craracler ol lre rears erp|oyed |r lre aggress|or does rol deperd upor lre resu|l lrereol
oul upor lre rears |lse|l, |r correcl|or W|lr lre aggressor's purpose |r erp|oy|rg |l.
Case: Peop|e vs. Reyes
%re accused allac|ed lre ollerded parly urexpecled|y ard lre Wourds |rl||cled oy r|r upor lre |aller Wou|d
rave caused dealr rad rol lre Weapor Wrereoy lre sare Were |rl||cled rel W|lr ar ooslac|e, sucr as r|os,
Wr|cr preverled |ls perelral|rg lre |urgs ard ||dreys, a|ev|osa |s preserl ard lre delerdarl |s gu||ly ol
lruslraled rurder.
Treachery cannot be presumed
0ua||ly|rg c|rcurslarce ol lreacrery ray rol oe s|rp|y deduced lror presurpl|or as |l |s recessary lral lre
ex|slerce ol lr|s qua||ly|rg or aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce srou|d oe prover as lu||y as lre cr|re |lse|l |r order lo
aggravale lre ||ao|||ly or pera|ly |rcurred oy lre cu|pr|l.
l||uslral|ors:
Case: Peop|e vs. ve|aga Jr.
%re assa||arl Was a|ore Wrer r|s v|cl|r rad 1 corpar|ors rearoy Wro cou|d respord |rsl|rcl|ve|y upor see|rg
lre|r |rjured corpar|or; ar a|lercal|or preceded lre allac|; ard lre reel|rg ol lre v|cl|r ard lre assa||arl Was
or|y acc|derla|. No lreacrery
Case: Peop|e vs. %|ozor
No W|lress Wro cou|d rave seer roW lre deceased Was srol Was preserled. No lreacrery
Case: Peop|e vs. Nar|l
%re W|lress lo lre allac| d|d rol see roW |l a|| oegar ard cou|d rol prov|de lre dela||s or roW lre |r|l|a| allac|
Was correrced ard roW |l deve|oped url|| lre v|cl|r le|| lo lre grourd al Wr|cr l|re re saW lre la||er v|cl|r
oe|rg oealer; lre lre aulopsy reporl sroWs ro oac| |rjury; ard lre allac| Was rad |r oroad day||grl, or a puo||c
road ard |r ar |rrao|led area, W|lr lre use ol a Wooder c|uo a|| |rd|cal|ve ol a casua| ard rol a p|arred
ercourler. No lreacrery
Case: Peop|e vs. %ugoo
%re allac| Was lrorla|, |rd|cal|rg lral lre v|cl|r Was rol lola||y W|lroul opporlur|ly lo delerd r|rse|l ard a||
surrourd|rg c|rcurslarces |rd|cale lral lre allac| Was lre resu|l ol a rasr ard |rpeluous |rpu|se ol lre
rorerl ralrer lrar lror a de||oerale acl ol lre W|||
Excepl|ors
1. Case: u.3. vs. 3arlos
%re v|cl|r Was l|ed e|ooW lo e|ooW, r|s oody W|lr rary Wourds ard r|s read cul oll, lreacrery ray oe
cors|dered as ar aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce.
2. Peop|e vs. Laggu|
%re |||||rg ol a cr||d |s rurder qua||l|ed oy lreacrery, ever |l lre rarrer ol allac| Was rol sroWr
3. Peop|e vs. Reluoado
%reacrery rusl oe apprec|aled |r lre |||||rg ol a cr||d ever |l lre rarrer ol allac| |s rol sroWr.
The mode of attack must be consc|ous|y adopted
%r|s rears lral:
1. %re accused rusl ra|e sore preparal|or lo |||| lre deceased |r sucr a rarrer as lo |rsure lre
execul|or ol lre cr|re or lo ra|e |l |rposs|o|e or rard lor lre persor allac|ed lo delerd r|rse|l
or rela||ale.
2. %re rode ol allac| rusl oe lrougrl ol oy lre ollerder, ard rusl rol spr|rg lror lre urexpecled
lurr ol everls.
lr lre lo||oW|rg cases, |l Was re|d lral lrere Was lreacrery:
1. Case: Peop|e vs. %arar|
%re acl ol srool|rg lre v|cl|r al a d|slarce W|lroul lre |easl expeclal|or or r|s parl lral re Wou|d oe assau|led.
2. Case: Peop|e vs. Vor|
%re accused rade a de||oerale, surpr|se allac| or lre v|cl|rs.
3. Case: Peop|e vs. R|corerroso
%re rards ol lre v|cl|r Were ra|sed ard re Was p|ead|rg lor rercy W|lr ore ol lre assa||arls Wrer arolrer
slruc| r|r or lre rec| W|lr a oo|o. %re ro|e ol lre lr|rd assa||arl ol Wea|er|rg lre delerse, oy d|sao||rg lre sor
ol lre deceased, Was parl ard parce| ol lre rears ol execul|or de||oerale|y resorled lo oy lre assa||arls lo
|rsure lre assass|ral|or ol lre deceased W|lroul ary r|s| lo lrerse|ves.
1. Case: Peop|e vs. Zapalero
%re assa||arl, |r slraleg|ca||y p|ac|rg r|rse|l |r a loresled area rear lre r|grWay ard l|r|rg al lre ursuspecl|rg
v|cl|r al a d|slarce ol 8 relers, erp|oyed a rode ol execul|or lral |rsured lre corsurral|or ol lre cr|re.
5. Case: Peop|e vs. C|ererler
%re v|cl|r, a Worar, Was l|rsl reduced lo re|p|essress oelore sre Was srol
. Case: peop|e vs. 3arga|arg
%re v|cl|r Was srol Wr||e re Was galrer|rg luoa or lop ol a cocorul lree. le Was urarred ard delerse|ess. le
Was rol expecl|rg lo oe assau|led. le d|d rol g|ve ary |rred|ale provocal|or.
Z. Peop|e vs. Varargar
ll Was lreacrerous lo srool Cayago al r|grl, Wr||e re Was ur|ral|rg or lre porcr ard Wrer re d|d rol expecl al
a|| lral r|s erery, Varargar, Was or|y 1 relers aWay a|r|rg a caro|re al r|r.
8. Case: Peop|e vs. 0rg
%re v|cl|r Was l|ed ard gagged oelore oe|rg slaooed. urd|spuled lacls sroWed lral lerry Crua's rards Were
l|ed ard r|s roulr Was gagged W|lr a l|arre| c|olr oelore re Was slaooed lW|ce W|lr ar |cep|c| ard our|ed |r a
sra||oW grave rear lre cree|.
9. Case: Peop|e vs. Pajerado
%re 5 accused sudder|y |rlercepled lre v|cl|r Wr||e re Was or r|s Way lo lre rouse ol r|s cous|r. v|cl|r Was
urarred ard re rad ro l|re lo delerd r|rse|l |r v|eW ol lre sudderress ol lre assau|l ard lre lacl lral re Was
drur| al lral l|re.
10. Peop|e vs. Pa|erc|a
Vosl ol lre Wourds susla|red oy lre v|cl|r ard Wr|cr Were lala| Were lourd or r|s oac|. A|| ol lrese are
|rd|cal|ve ol lre lacl lral lre accused erp|oyed rears ard relrods Wr|cr lerded d|recl|y ard espec|a||y lo
|rsure lre execul|or ol ollerse W|lroul r|s| lo ollerders ar|s|rg lror lre delerse Wr|cr lre ollerded parly r|grl
rave rade.
11. Case: Peop|e vs. %or|o|o
%re v|cl|r Was c|ear|y rol |r a pos|l|or lo delerd r|rse|l al lre l|re ol lre allac|. le Was lrer or lop ol a
cocorul lree. l|s assa||arl Was or lre grourd a|r|rg ard l|r|rg al r|r as rucr as |l re Were a s|ll|rg duc|.
12. Peop|e vs. C|aror
%re accused, arred W|lr a gur, r|d|rg larder W|lr a rolorcyc|e, sudder|y ard W|lroul Warr|rg, srol lre v|cl|r
|r lre oac| as lre rolorcyc|e sped oy %re v|cl|r Was Wa|||rg a|ore ursuspecl|rg ard urarred. %re rolorcyc|e
lrer lurred oac| lo Wrere lre v|cl|r |ay Wourded ard lre accused l|red al r|r orce rore, aga|r r|ll|rg r|r |r
lre oac|.
13. Case: Peop|e vs. Luoero
%re accused, aller rav|rg rade 2 sleps oer|rd lre v|cl|r, sudder|y ard urexpecled|y, W|lr lre use ol oo|o,
rac|ed lre deceased al r|s oac| caus|rg a deep Wourd ard a lraclure ol lre 5
lr
r|o.
11. Case: Peop|e vs. Lacao
%re deceased Was slaooed W|lroul Warr|rg. 3o sudder ard urarl|c|paled Was lre allac| lral lre v|cl|r Was
g|ver ro crarce lo delerd r|rse|l. %rer lre accused, a|lrougr apparerl|y acl|rg W|lroul pr|or agreererl, a|so
|rslarl|y ard a|| logelrer allac|ed r|r.
hen treachery |s not present
1. Case: Peop|e vs. Yoarez
%re allac| Was perpelraled |r a lrorla| ercourler, sroWr oy lre |ocal|or ol lre Wourds or lre parl ol lre v|cl|r's
oody. %rere Were ro Wourds or lre oac|. %re assa||arls d|d rol ra|e ary de||oerale, surpr|se allac| or lre
v|cl|r. %rey d|d rol corsc|ous|y adopl a lreacrerous rode ol allac|. %re allac| Was preceded oy ar a|lercal|or
ard or lre spur ol lre rorerl.
2. Peop|e vs. Varzaro
%re |r|l|a| assau|l or lre v|cl|r Was rol rade |r a sudder ard urexpecled rarrer. %re ra|elaclors gave r|r
ar or|rous Warr|rg ol lre|r preserce ard rera|ded lre|r erlrarce |rlo r|s rouse oy l|r|rg 2 gursrols al lre
grourd. %rey l|rsl rau|ed r|r presurao|y |r a lrorla| ercourler.
3. Peop|e vs. Curarar
%re accused ard r|s corpar|ors d|d rol caroul|age lre|r rosl||e |rlerl|ors. %rey arrourced lre|r preserce al
lre scere ol lre cr|re W|lr srouls ard gursrols.
hen treachery cannot be cons|dered
Case: Peop|e vs. Vacaso
%reacrery carrol oe apprec|aled Wrere lree |s rolr|rg |r lre record lo sroW lral lre accused rad pordered
upor lre rode or relrod lo |rsure lre |||||rg ol lre deceased or rerove or d|r|r|sr ary r|s| lo r|rse|l lral
r|grl ar|se lror lre delerse lral lre deceased r|grl ra|e, as Wrer r|s dec|s|or lo srool lre v|cl|r |s sudder,
orougrl aooul oy a sl|rg|rg provocal|or lror lre |aller.

Case: Peop|e vs. Raro|ele
lr as rucr as Reluerzo Was urarred ard uller|y delerse|ess, re lr|ed lo escape lrrougr lre W|rdoW. 0u|r|ro
Raro|ele srol r|r |r lral s|lual|or. Reluerzo le|| |rlo lre oala|ar W|lr 3 ser|ous gursrol Wourds ol erlry lo r|s
oac|. %reacrery Was rar|lesl |r lral rarrer ol assau|l oecause |l |rsured lre |||||rg W|lroul ary r|s| lo lre
assa||arl.
Case: Peop|e vs. Cruz
wrer lre v|cl|r saW lre appe||arl rac||rg rer s|sler, sre rar oul ol lre rouse ard cr|ed lor re|p. Appe||arl
crased rer ard upor overla||rg rer, slruc| rer or lre read.
hen there |s no ev|dence that the accused had, pr|or to the moment of the k||||ng, reso|ved to comm|t
the cr|me, or there |s no proof that the death of the v|ct|m was the resu|t of med|tat|on, ca|cu|at|on or
ref|ect|on, treachery cannot be cons|dered.
%rere rusl oe ev|derce sroW|rg lral lre accused rel|ecled or lre rears, relrod or lorrs ol |||||rg lre v|cl|r.
%re craracler|sl|c ard urr|sla|ao|e rar|leslal|or ol lreacrery s lre de||oerale, sudder ard urexpecled allac|
ol lre v|cl|r lror oer|rd, W|lroul ary Warr|rg ard W|lroul g|v|rg r|r ar opporlur|ly lo delerd r|rse|l or repe|
lre |r|l|a| assau|l.
That the mode of attack was consc|ous|y adopted may be |nferred from the c|rcumstances
Case: peop|e vs. Lurar
Aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce ol lreacrery |s eslao||sred Wrere lre ev|derce sroWed lral ore ol lre accused
approacred lre v|cl|r lror oer|rd, erc|rc||rg r|s arr |r a l|grl gr|p arourd lre v|cl|r's rec| Wr||e r|s co-
accused re|d lre v|cl|r's 2 ards, ard as lre v|cl|r lrus rerdered re|p|ess ard urao|e lo delerd r|rse|l, oolr
lre lorrer ard a lr|rd co-accused slaooed lre v|cl|r W|lr lre sc|ssor o|ades, |rl||cl|rg upor lre v|cl|r al |easl 1
ser|ous slao Wourds ard ore ol Wr|cr cou|d rave caused r|s dealr.
Case: Peop|e vs. Jaravala
%reacrery allerded lre |||||rg Wrere lre assa||arls r|d oer|rd a p||e ol |ogs urder cover ol dar|ress ard lre
v|cl|r Was approacred lror oer|rd ard srol as re lurred arourd.
Case: Peop|e vs. E||ago
8y lre|r acls ol sroWer|rg lre rouse W|lr ou||els, execuled |r lre dar|ress ol lre r|grl, lre ollerders erp|oyed
rears, relrods ard lorrs |r lre execul|or ol lre cr|re Wr|cr lerded d|recl|y lo |rsure lre execul|or ol lre|r
cr|r|ra| des|gr W|lroul r|s| lo lrerse|ves ar|s|rg lror lre delerse Wr|cr lre occuparls ol lre rouse r|grl
ra|e.
Case: Peop|e vs. 0uevarra
ll lre accused Was We|| r|dder oer|rd a lree Wrer re srol lre v|cl|r, Wro urarred ard uraWare, rad ro Way ol
delerd|rg r|rse|l, lreacrery |s preserl
Case: Peop|e vs. 0ad|s
%re delerdarl r|d oer|rd a lree ard srol al lre v|cl|r Wr||e lre |aller Was rurr|rg aWay ard Was lrus W|lroul
rears ol delerd|rg r|rse|l, oul lreacrery Was rol apprec|aled oecause lre delerdarl d|d rol purpose|y la|e
advarlage ol lre c|rcurslarce lo |||| lre v|cl|r W|lroul r|s| lo r|rse|l. le d|d so oecause re Was scared,
oe||ev|rg lral lre deceased Was arred W|lr a gur.
Case: Peop|e vs. lerrardez
3 rer, arred W|lr |r|le, crepl up |r lre dar| aga|rsl a delerse|ess ard ursuspecl|rg v|cl|r Wro Was arsWer|rg
a ca|| ol ralure. wrer 2 ol lrer p|r|ored lre v|cl|r's arrs so lral lre|r corpar|or cou|d slao r|r repealed|y
ard W|lr |rpur|ly. %reacrery allerded
Case: Peop|e vs. 8ad|||a
%re rurerous slao Wourds, sore ol Wr|cr Were |rl||cled al lre oac| ol lre v|cl|r, sroW lral lre allac| Was
sudder ard orula|. %re sudderress ol lre allac| depr|ved lre v|cl|r, a Worar, urarred ard a|ore, lre
opporlur|ly lo rur ard l|grl oac|. %re assa||arl, a slrorg yourg rar, d|d rol ever suller ary |rjur|es excepl lor a
sra|| Wourd or r|s l|rger |rl||cled oy a o|le. 0ov|ous|y, as|de lror us|rg rer leelr, lre v|cl|r cou|d rol pul up
ary delerse. %reacrery |s preserl.
here the meet|ng between the accused and the v|ct|m |s casua| and the attack |mpu|s|ve|y done, there
|s no treachery.
Case: Peop|e vs. Ca||raWar
Facls: upor see|rg lre accused, lre deceased slarled lo rur, Wrereupor lre accused Wr|sl|ed al r|r. As lre
deceased |grored lre ca|| ard corl|rued lo rur aWay, lre accused gol oll r|s o|cyc|e ard, lror a d|slarce ol
sore 50 relers, l|red a srol al lre deceased Wro Was lala||y r|l. %re reel|rg ol lre 2 persors Was casua|. %re
accused l|red al r|s v|cl|r |rpu|s|ve|y, oecause lre |aller |grored lre ca|| ol lre accused.
le|d: wrere lre reel|rg oelWeer lre accused ard lre v|cl|r Was casua| ard lre allac| Was dore |rpu|s|ve|y,
lrere |s ro lreacrery ever |l lre allac| Was sudder ard urexpecled ard Wr||e lre v|cl|r Was rurr|rg aWay W|lr
r|s oac| loWards lre accused.
Case: Peop|e vs. 0|az
%re v|cl|r Was serl lo lre slore lo ouy sore oeer. ll, lrerelore, jusl so rappered lral re Was serl or ar errard
al lral parl|cu|ar l|re lo lral parl|cu|ar p|ace; olrerW|se, re Wou|d rave rera|red al rore. Nooody |reW
oelorerard lral re Wou|d go lo lre slore. Nol ever lre appe||arl ror r|s deceased orolrer cou|d rave expecled
lo reel lre v|cl|r lrere al lral spec|l|c rorerl. Nor cou|d lre appe||arl rave loreseer lral lre v|cl|r Wou|d oe
carry|rg ooll|es ol oeer al lre rorerl lral re Wou|d allac| lre |aller. %re reel|rg ol lre v|cl|r ard r|s
assa||arls Was casua|. %reacrery d|d rol allerd.
Attacks show|ng |ntent|on to e||m|nate r|sk
a. v|cl|r as|eep
%reacrery allerds Wrere lre v|cl|r Was slaooed Wr||e re Was as|eep
o. v|cl|r ra|l aWa|e or jusl aWa|ered
Case: Peop|e vs. Yadaor
Ever |l lre deceased Was a|ready aWa|e Wrer lre aggress|or correrced ard ever |l lrere Was ||grl, lre
v|cl|r Was sl||| doWr or r|s oac|, sl||| droWsy ard urarred. le Was uraWare ol lre delerdarl's |rlerl|or. %re
o|oWs Were de||vered a|| ol a sudder ard W|lroul Warr|rg. %reacrery |s allerdarl.
Case: Peop|e vs. Parle Jr.
%reacrery allerds Wrere lre v|cl|r rad jusl aWa|er Wrer allac|ed, oecause re r|grl sl||| oe dazed ard
urprepared lor lre allac| ard Wou|d rol oe |r a pos|l|or lo oller ary r|s| or darger ol rela||al|or lo lre allac|er.
c. v|cl|r grapp||rg or oe|rg re|d
Case: Peop|e vs. L|rgalorg
%reacrery Was preserl Wrer lre assa||arl slaooed lre v|cl|r Wr||e lre |aller Was grapp||rg W|lr arolrer, lrus
rerder|rg r|r pracl|ca||y re|p|ess ard urao|e lo pul up ary delerse.
d. Allac|ed lror oer|rd
1. w|lr a l|rearr
Case: Peop|e vs. lAC
%re srool|rg ol Ally. Noroerlo Vararoa Was lreacrerous. %re accused sudder|y ard W|lroul Warr|rg srol r|r
Wrer lre |aller lurred r|s oac| loWards lre accused ard relurred lo r|s lao|e lo eal. Ally. Vararoa Was lala||y
r|l or lre oac| ol r|s read ard le|| or lre cererl l|oor. Ally. Vararoa d|d rol serse ary darger lral re Wou|d
oe srol oy lre accused cors|der|rg lral re ard lre accused |reW eacr olrer persora||y ard lral lrere Was ro
prev|ous grudge or r|surderslard|rg oelWeer lrer.
2. w|lr a o|aded Weapor
Case: Peop|e vs. 0e|gado
%rere Was lreacrery as lre slaoo|rg Was lror oer|rd, dore |r a sudder ard urexpecled rarrer Wr||e lre
deceased Was s|ll|rg ard r|s read doWr or r|s rards.
3. 0lrer rodes ol arred allac|
Case: Peop|e vs. 0e Vesa
%reacrery |r lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re Was correcl|y apprec|aled. %re v|cl|r Was sudder|y slaooed oy lre
assa||arl W|lroul ary Warr|rg. A|lrougr re Was arred W|lr a gur, re Was rever g|ver ar opporlur|ly lo Ward oll
lre assau|l due lo |ls sudderress.
#equ|s|tes of treachery
1. %ral lre l|re ol lre allac|, lre v|cl|r Was rol |r a pos|l|or lo delerd r|rse|l; ard
2. %ral lre ollerder corsc|ous|y adopled lre parl|cu|ar rears, relrod or lorrs ol allac| erp|oyed
oy r|r.
%o corsl|lule lreacrery 2 cord|l|ors rusl oe preserl lo W|l: 1. %re erp|oyrerl ol rears ol execul|or lral gave
lre persor allac|ed ro opporlur|ly lo delerd r|rse|l or rela||ale; ard 2. %re rears ol execul|or Was
de||oerale|y or corsc|ous|y adopled.
The v|ct|m was not |n a pos|t|on to defend h|mse|f
%rere |s lreacrery Wrer lre ollerders rade a de||oerale surpr|se or urexpecled allac| or lre v|cl|r
Case: Peop|e vs. 8ayocol
%re accused Wa|led pal|erl|y ard de||oerale|y al lre larrrouse ol lre deceased, rel rer or lre road Wrer re
saW rer cor|rg r|d|rg or a s|ed, Wa|led or lre roads|de url|| lre v|cl|r passed oy ard lrer, W|lroul Warr|rg
ard W|lroul g|v|rg lre v|cl|r a crarce lo escape, rade a sudder ard urexpecled allac|. %re urarred, 5 year
o|d Worar Was aoso|ule|y re|p|ess ard urao|e lo delerd rerse|l lror lre overpoWer|rg slrerglr ol lre accused
Wrer re slaooed rer lW|ce W|lr a coroal oo|o. %re v|cl|r rad ro opporlur|ly lo delerd rerse|l or repe| lre |r|l|a|
assau|l.
Case: Peop|e vs. 8ravarle
%re v|cl|r Was or|rg|rg lood |lers lor a rocre 8uera Wrer re Was sudder|y allac|ed oy 2 assa||arls, ore
arred W|lr a spear ard lre olrer W|lr a oo|o. %re allac| Was so sudder lral lre v|cl|r rad ro opporlur|ly lo
delerd r|rse|l or lo |rl||cl rela||alory o|oWs or lre assa||arls. le jusl le|| doWr aller lre spear|rg ard Was lrer
rac|ed W|lr a oo|o.
There |s no treachery when the v|ct|m was a|ready defend|ng h|mse|f when he was attacked by the
accused
Case: Peop|e vs. 0|va
wrere lre deceased Was sudder|y allac|ed oul re Was ao|e lo relreal lo avo|d oe|rg r|l oy lre rac||rg o|oWs
ard Was r|l or|y Wrer re Was a|ready |r lre acl ol delerd|rg r|rse|l aga|rsl lre allac| ol lre accused, lrere |s
ro lreacrery.
0oes the fact that advantage was taken of re|at|ve confus|on, so that the act and |dent|ty of the offender
wou|d not be detected, and so that h|s escape wou|d be fac|||tated and adequate|y estab||sh treachery?
Case: Peop|e vs. %||os
%re 3o||c|lor 0erera| |r r|s or|el recorrerds lral delerdarl oe lourd gu||ly or|y ol ror|c|de, slal|rg lral, |r r|s
v|eW, lreacrery |s rol oorre oul oy ev|derce. 0ur cors|deral|or, roWever, ol lre lacl sroWr |r lre record,
parl|cu|ar|y Ro|ardo 8arrao's lesl|rory, corv|rces us lral lreacrery ras oeer adequale|y eslao||sred. As
recourled oy sa|d W|lress, delerdarl al lre l|re, Wrer, or accourl ol lre sroWer, peop|e Were go|rg oul ol lre
darce ra|| lo see| lor cover. Advarlage Was lrerelore la|er oy lre delerdarl ol lre re|al|ve corlus|or crealed
oy lre sroWer or lre croWd, so lral r|s acl ard |derl|ly Wou|d rol oe delecled oy lre peop|e |r lre darce ra||
ard so lral r|s escape Wou|d oe lac|||laled.
Treachery does not connote the e|ement of surpr|se a|one
Here sudden and unexpected attack does not necessar||y gve r|se to treachery
hen the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare, there was no treachery
Case: Peop|e vs. v|sagar
wrer lre accused cra||erged lre deceased lo a gurl|grl oelore lre srool|rg, lre allac| Was rol lreacrerous
ever |l lre srool|rg Was sudder ard lre deceased Was rol prepared oecause |l gave lre deceased a crarce lo
prepare lor lre |rperd|rg allacj.
No treachery where the attack |s preceded by warn|ng
6a|||ng attent|on of v|ct|m not necessar||y a warn|ng
Case: Peop|e vs. Vagduero
%reacrery |r rol eslao||sred; lre assa||arl l|red 2 success|ve srols al lre delerse|ess v|cl|r, a l|sca|, Wr||e lre
|aller Was sl||| sealed |r r|s jeep, r|ll|rg r|r al lre rec| ard lre |uroar reg|or. %re lacl lral lre assa||arl ca||ed
oul 'F|sca| oelore srool|rg lre v|cl|r does rol regale lre preserce ol lreacrery. %re assa||arl oe|rg r|red
||||er, re Warled lo |rsure lral re Was srool|rg lre correcl persor. wrer lre v|cl|r lurred r|s lace lo l|rd oul
Wro Was ca|||rg r|r, lre assa||arl l|red |rred|ale|y, rerder|rg ro opporlur|ly lo v|cl|r lo delerd r|rse|l.
No treachery where shoot|ng |s preceded by heated d|scuss|on


Case: Peop|e vs. 0orza|es
Facls: Aller a or|el excrarge ol slrorg |arguage, lre accused pu||ed r|s revo|ver ard l|red al lre deceased 3
l|res success|ve|y, Wr||e lre |aller Was aoso|ule|y delerse|ess, as re rad ro Weapor ol ary ||rd Wralsoever |r
r|s rards al lral l|re.
le|d: 3|rce lre srool|rg Was preceded oy a realed d|scuss|or oelWeer lre 2, |l rusl rave p|aced lre deceased
or r|s guard, ard lre a||eged lreacrery carrol oe |ega||y cors|dered.
K||||ng unarmed v|ct|m whose hands are upra|sed |s comm|tted w|th treachery
Case: Peop|e vs. 8aroa
%re accused po|rled r|s r|l|e al lre v|cl|r al a d|slarce ol relers ard sa|d, 'Pardorg, slard up, We are go|rg
lo srool you. %re v|cl|r rad r|s rards upra|sed, p|ead|rg |r a |oud vo|ce. '0o rol |||| re, |rvesl|gale l|rsl Wral
Was ry lau|l. %re accused srol lre v|cl|r, rorla||y Wourd|rg r|r.
le|d: %re |||||rg Was corr|lled W|lr lreacrery
K||||ng a woman ask|ng for mercy |s comm|tted w|th treachery
Case: Peop|e vs. 0agurdorg
%re accused srol Vrs. loWe|| Wr||e sre Was p|ead|rg lor rer daugrlers: 'VaaWa ra |ayo. luWag po.
le|d: %re |||||rg Was corr|lled W|lr lreacrery.
There |s treachery |n k||||ng a ch||d
Case: u.3. vs. 0ro
K||||rg a cr||d |s craracler|zed oy lreacrery oecause lre Wea|ress ol lre v|cl|r due lo r|s lerder age resu|ls |r
lre aoserce ol ary darger lo lre accused.
|ntent to k||| |s not necessary |n murder w|th treachery
Case: Peop|e vs. Cagoco
0re Wro slruc| arolrer W|lr lre l|rsl lror oer|rd, lre o|oW |ard|rg or lre oac| parl ol lre read, caus|rg lre
|aller lo la|| oac|Wards, r|s read slr|||rg lre aspra|l pavererl Wr|cr caused dealr resu|l|rg lror a lraclure ol
lre s|u||, |s gu||ly ol rurder a|lrougr re d|d rol |rlerd lo |||| lre deceased. %re 3C ol 3pa|r ras re|d lral lrere
|s ro |rcorpal|o|||ly, rora| or |ega|, oelWeer a|ev|osa ard lre r|l|gal|rg c|rcurslarce ol rol rav|rg |rlerded lo
cause so greal ar |rjury.
ut |ntent to k||| |s necessary |n murder comm|tted by means of f|re
Treachery may ex|st even |f the attack |s face to face
F|ash|ng the beam of a f|ash||ght on the face of the v|ct|m.
Case: Peop|e vs. Porgo|
wrere |rred|ale|y pr|or lo lre slaoo|rg, lre accused l|asred lre oear ol l|asr||grl or lre lace ol lre v|cl|r,
rorerlar||y o||rd|rg lre |aller, lre allac|, lrougr lrorla|, Was sudder ard perpelraled |r a rarrer lerd|rg
d|recl|y lo |rsure |ls execul|or, lree lror ary darger lral lre v|cl|r r|grl delerd r|rse|l.
Treachery must be proved by c|ear and conv|nc|ng ev|dent
Attack from beh|nd |s not a|ways a|ev|osa
Hust treachery be present |n the beg|nn|ng of the assau|t?
ll deperds upor lre c|rcurslarce ol lre case
ll rusl oe sroWr lral lre lreacrerous acl Were preserl ard preceded lre corrercererl ol lre allac| Wr|cr
caused lre |rjury corp|a|red ol.
Case: Peop|e vs. %apero
NolW|lrslard|rg lre srool|rg Was sudder ard urexpecled ard corr|lled or a re|p|ess v|cl|r, |r lre aoserce ol
a sroW|rg lral sucr rode ol allac| Was adopled corsc|ous|y ard lral lre assa||arl |roW|rg|u |rlerded lo
ersure lre accorp||srrerl ol r|s cr|r|ra| purpose, ard Wrere lre srool|rg Was or|y ar allerralr ol a rau||rg,
||c||rg ard oox|rg |rc|derl, lreacrery d|d rol allerd. ll |s ar eslao||sred ru|e lral lreacrery rusl oe preserl lror
lre corrercererl ol lre allac|.
Case: u3 vs. 8a|uyol
Ever lrougr |r lre |rcepl|or ol lre aggress|or Wr|cr erded |r lre dealr ol lre deceased, lreacrery Was rol
preserl, |l lrere Was a orea| |r lre corl|ru|ly ol lre aggress|or ard al lre l|re lre lala| Wourd Was |rl||cled or
lre deceased re Was delerse|ess, lre c|rcurslarce ol lreacrery rusl oe la|er |rlo accourl.
Case: u.3. vs. 8a|aglas
Facls: %re accused |roc|ed doWr lre v|cl|r, slr|||rg r|r Wr||e or lre grourd. %rer, lre accused lrreW r|r |rlo
lre Waler, lace doWrWard Wr||e re Was sl||| a||ve |r a re|p|ess ard delerse|ess acl|or.
le|d: %re |roc||rg doWr ol lre v|cl|r, slr|||rg r|r or lre grourd, ard lrroW|rg r|r |rlo lre Waler corsl|luled
ore ard lre sare allac|. 0re corl|ruous allac| carrol oe oro|er up |rlo 2 or rore parls ard rade lo corl|rue
separale, d|sl|rcl ard |rdeperderl allac| so lral lreacrery ray oe |rjecled lrere|r.
Nole: lr lr|s case, lrere Was ro lreacrery |r lre |rcepl|or ol lre allac|
Case: Peop|e vs. Carele
Facls: %re accused assau|led lre deceased W|lr a |r|le ard, |r lre course ol lre l|grl Wr|cr ersued, |rl||cled a
ser|ous cul or r|s lr|gr. upor rece|v|rg lre Wourd, lre deceased lurred erd l|ed, ard Was |rred|ale|y pursued
oy lre accused. Aller go|rg a srorl d|slarce, lre deceased le|| or lre grourd lace doWrWards; ard oelore re
cou|d recover r|s equ|po|se ard resure r|s l||grl, lre accused rar up ard de||vered a lala| o|oW W|lr r|s |r|le or
lre oac| ol lre deceased.
le|d: %ral as lre assau|l Was rol craracler|zed oy a|ev|osa |r |ls |rcepl|or ard lre aggress|or Was corl|ruous
url|| lre corsurral|or ol lre deed, lre ollerse corsl|luled s|rp|e ror|c|de ard rol rurder.
Carele cou|d rol rave corsc|ous|y adopled lre relrod ol allac|, lral |s slaoo|rg lre deceased |r lre oac|
Wrer lre |aller Was |r a re|p|ess cord|l|or, s|rce lre assau|l oegar lace lo lace ard |l Was or|y Wrer lre
deceased lurred arourd ard rar Way lral lre|r re|al|ve pos|l|or crarged. Ard as lre aggress|or Was
corl|ruous, Carele rad ro l|re lo prepare lor, or ever lr|r| ol, lral relrod ol allac|.
Case: Peop|e vs. 8a|uyol
Facls: %re accused erlered lre oll|ce ol lre goverror ol 8alaar Wrer lre |aller Was s|ll|rg or a cra|r oer|rd r|s
des|. %re accused approacred lre des| ard upor reacr|rg a pos|l|or d|recl|y |r lrorl ol lre goverror, spo|e
cerla|r Words. upor d|scover|rg lral lre goverror Was urarred, lre accused dreW r|s oWr Weapor ard l|red.
%re ou||el l|red erlered |r lre lrorla| reg|or ol lre r|grl srou|der o|ade ol lre goverror ard |rl||cled a Wourd ol
r|ror |rporlarce. %re goverror |rred|ale|y arose. le escaped |r lre d|recl|or lo r|s |ell oy Way ol lre space
oelWeer lre |ell correr ol r|s des| ard Wa|| rearoy, |ead|rg |rlo lre corr|dor. %re accused rearWr||e lurred
soreWral lo r|s r|grl ard advarced s||grl|y |r lre d|recl|or la|er oy lre goverror, r|ll|rg lre |aller |r lre reg|or
ol lre r|grl srou|der o|ade ard pass|rg lrrougr lre oody, ar |rcr or lWo lror lre Wourd rade oy lre l|rsl srol.
%re goverror corl|rued r|s l||grl a|org lre corr|dor ard loo| reluge |r a c|osel al lre erd ol lre corr|dor. 0rce
W|lr|r, re srul lre door ard p|aced r|rse|l |r appos|l|or lo ooslrucl lre erlrarce ol r|s pursuer Wro va|r|y
allerpled lo oper lre door. %re goverror screared lor re|d. %r|s l|re, lre accused Wro Was ouls|de lre c|osel
slopped lor a rorerl ard judg|rg lror lre pos|l|or ol lre goverror's read lror lre d|recl|or ol lre sourd
er|lled, l|red r|s revo|ver |r lre d|recl|or |rd|caled/ %re ou||el passed lrrougr lre pare| ol lre door ard slruc|
lre goverror |r lre lorWard parl ol lre read rear ard aoove lre lerp|e. %r|s Wourd Was recessary lala|.
le|d: %re erl|re assau|l lror lre oeg|rr|rg url|| lre secord srol Was l|red rusl oe cors|dered corl|ruous ard
lral lre secord srol Was l|red Wr||e lre v|cl|r Was erdeavor|rg lo l|ee lo a p|ace ol salely.
Ever suppos|rg lral a|ev|osa rad rol oeer preserl |r lre oeg|rr|rg ol lre assau|l, |l Wou|d oe recessary lo l|rd
lre e|ererl preserl lror lre rarrer |r Wr|cr lre cr|re Was corsurraled.
lr lre c|osel W|lr lre door srul, |l Was |rposs|o|e lor lre goverror lo see Wral r|s assa||arl Was do|rg or lo ra|e
ary delerse Wralever aga|rsl lre srol d|recled lrrougr lre pare| door. ll Was as |l lre v|cl|r rad oeer oourd or
o||rd-lo|ded or rad oeer lreacrerous|y allac|ed lror oer|rd |r a palr ooscured oy lre dar|ress ol lre r|grl.
8ummary of ru|es
1. wrer lre aggress|or |s corl|ruous, lreacrery rusl oe preserl |r lre oeg|rr|rg ol lre assau|l
2. wrer lre assau|l Was rol corl|ruous, |r lral lrere Was ar |rlerrupl|or , |l |s sull|c|erl lral
lreacrery Was preserl al lre rorerl lre lala| o|oW Was g|ver
|n treachery, |t makes no d|fference whether or n|t the v|ct|m was the same person whom the accused
|ntended to k|||
hen treachery |s not to be cons|dered as to the pr|nc|pa| by |nduct|on
Case: u3 vs. 0Arao
wrer |l |s rol sroWr lral lre pr|rc|pa| oy |rducl|or d|recled or |rduced lre ||||er ol lre deceased lo adopl lre
rears or relrods aclua||y used oy lre |aller |r accorp||sr|rg lre rurder, oecause lre lorrer |ell lo lre |aller
lre dela||s as lo roW |l Was lo oe accorp||sred, lreacrery carrol oe la|er |rlo cors|deral|or as lre pr|rc|pa| oy
|rducl|or. ll sra|| aggravale lre ||ao|||ly ol lre aclua| ||||er or|y.
Treachery, abuse of super|or strength, and means emp|oyed to weaken the defense, d|st|ngu|shed
lr lreacrery, rears, relrods ard lorrs ol allac| are erp|oyed oy lre ollerder lo ra|e |l |rposs|o|e or rard lor
lre ollerded parly lo pul up ary sorl ol res|slarce
lr aouse ol super|or slrerglr, lre ollerder does rol erp|oy rears, relrods or lorr ol allac|; re or|y la|es
advarlage ol r|s super|or slrerglr
lr rears erp|oyed lo Wea|er lre delerse, lre ollerder, |||e lreacrery, erp|oys rears oul lre rears
erp|oyed or|y raler|a||y Wea|ers lre res|sl|rg poWer ol lre ollerded parly.
hen there |s consp|racy, treachery |s cons|dered aga|nst a|| the offenders
%reacrery srou|d oe cors|dered aga|rsl a|| persors parl|c|pal|rg or cooperal|rg |r lre perpelral|or ol lre cr|re,
excepl Wrer lrere |s ro corsp|racy arorg lrer. lerce, ol lrere Was ro corsp|racy ever |l 2 accused re|ped
eacr olrer |r allac||rg lre deceased, or|y lre ore Wro |rl||cled lre Wourd upor lre deceased Wr||e lre |aller
Was slrugg||rg W|lr lre olrer delerdarl, |s lo suller lre ellecl ol allerdarce ol lreacrery.
%reacrery srou|d oe cors|dered aga|rsl lrose persor Wro rad |roW|edge ol lre erp|oyrerl ol lreacrery al lre
l|re ol lre execul|or ol lre acl or lre|r cooperal|or lrere|r.
wrer lrere |s corsp|racy, lreacrery allerds aga|rsl a|| corsp|ralors, a|lrougr or|y ore d|d lre aclua| slaoo|rg ol
lre v|cl|r.
The masterm|nd shou|d have know|edge of the emp|oyment of treachery |f he was not present when the
cr|me was comm|tted.
|f the |ntervent|on of the other persons d|d not d|rect|y and espec|a||y |nsure the execut|on of the cr|me
w|thout r|sk to the accused, there |s no treachery.
Case: Peop|e vs. Ju||pa
Ever |l lre W|le ard s|sler ol lre accused re|d lre rard ol lre deceased oy r|s sr|rl Wrer lre accused |rl||cled
lre oo|o Wourds Wr|cr caused r|s dealr, lrere |s ro lreacrery, oecause lre oody ard rards ol lre deceased
Were rol depr|ved ol ||oerly ol acl|or ard, rerce, lrere |s sl||| r|s| lo lre persor ol lre accused ar|s|rg lror lre
delerse Wr|cr lre v|cl|r r|grl ra|e.
Treachery, ev|dent premed|tat|on and use of super|or strength are absorbed |n treason by k||||ngs.
Treachery absorbs abuse of super|or strength, a|d or armed men, by a band and means to weaken the
defense
N|ghtt|me |nherent |n treachery
6raft |s |nc|uded |n and absorbed by treachery
Case: Peop|e vs. 0aos
%re aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce ol crall ard lreacrery srou|d oe la|er |rlo cors|deral|or, or lre grourd lral lre
acl ol lre accused |r prelerd|rg lo oe oora l|de passergers |r lre lax| |r order rol lo arouse lre dr|ver's
susp|c|or corsl|lule crall; ard lre lacl lral |r assau|l|rg r|r lrey d|d so lror oer|rd, calcr|rg r|r corp|ele|y
uraWare, cerla|r|y corsl|lules lreacrery.
Age and sex |nc|uded |n treachery
|||ustrat|on of aggravat|ng c|rcumstance absorbed by another
Case: Peop|e vs. P|r|rg
%re c|rcurslarces ol r|grll|re, ur|rrao|led p|ace, crue|ly ard a|d ol arred persors carrol oe la|er |rlo
cors|deral|or as aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce, oecause r|grll|re Was recessar||y |rc|uded |r lral ol lreacrery, lral
ol ur|rrao|led p|ace, oecause |l ras rol oeer prover lral lrere Were ro rouses rear lre rouse ol lre deceased;
lral ol crue|ly, oecause lre l|re, Wr|cr |s lre lacl |r Wr|cr sa|d c|rcurslarce |s rade lo cors|sl, loo| p|ace aller
lre v|cl|rs Were a|ready dead, lre appe||arl rol rav|rg la|er advarlage ol sa|d rears lo de||oerale|y augrerl
lre ser|ousress ol lre cr|re ard lral lrose Wro a|d ol arred persors, oecause lre appe||arl as We|| as lrose
Wro cooperaled W|lr r|r |r lre corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re |r quesl|or, acled urder lre sare p|ar lor lre sare
purpose.
0we|||ng |s not |nc|uded |n treachery

0efense|ess cond|t|on of v|ct|m |s |nc|uded |n abuse of super|or strength, not treachery
Treachery |s |nherent |n murder by po|son|ng
Treachery cannot co-ex|st w|th pass|on or obfuscat|on
Par. 17
Basis: means employed
!gnominy: circumstance pertaining to the moral order, adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime, 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 crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion,
and murder
: People vs. Cantong ignominy in light coercion, A embraced and kissed O under impulse
of anger rather than a desire to satisfy his lust, committed in the presence of many persons,
tended to make the effects more humiliating, US vs. De Leon D, a landowner, before he
was murdered, forced by A to kneel in front of his house servants drawn up in line before
him
: People vs. Torrefiel rape, cogon grass around genital organ to increase pain
: People vs. Nongado no ignominy as rape was done after husband was killed
: People vs. Fernando compel old woman to confess theft of clothes, A maltreated her and
took off her drawers, grave coercion
: People vs. ]ose exhibit complete nakedness for about 2 minutes before raping
: People vs. Bumidang A used flashlight S examined the genital of the victim before he
RAv!SHED her in the presence of her old father
: People vs. Nierra D went to the beach, squatted, A suddenly appeared behind her, held
her hair to tilt face, inserted muzzle of pistol into her mouth and fired :( :( :(
: No ignominy when acts were done after victim was dead or killed, proliferation of shots
not sufficient to show ignominy, no ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his
wife
: Rape committed on the occasion of robbery with homicide increases moral evil of the
crime ignominy!!!
A8 18 1haL crlme be commlLLed afLer an unlawful enLry
8ASlS means and ways employed Lo commlL Lhe crlme
**should be enLry n1 escape
8LASn one who acLs noL respecLlng Lhe walls erecLed by men Lo guard Lhelr properLy and provlde
for Lhelr personal safeLy shows a greaLer perverslLy a greaLer audaclLy hence Lhe law punlshed
hlm wlLh more severlLy
eople v 8arruga
O Accused galned access Lo Lhe dwelllng by cllmblng Lhrough Lhe wlndow and once lnslde
murdered cerLaln persons
Par 19: As a mean to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door
or window be broken
Basis - has reference to means and ways employed to commit crime
*cutting of canvass of tent where soldiers are sleeping covered by Par 19?
considered aggravating in murder where accused cut the ropes at the rear of
field tent nad killed 2 soldiers inside (US v. MATANUG)
SC called it the aggravating circumstance of forcible entry.
"As a means to the commission of crime
A broke window to enable to reach a purse with money on the table
near that window, which he took while his body was outside of the
building
Crime of theft was attended by this aggravating circumstance
"as means to the commission of the crime - not necessary that the
offender have entered the building; what aggravates is the breaking
of a part of the building as means to commission of crime
People v. CAPILLAS
Considered as an aggravating circumstance, breaking of door
must be utilized as means to the commission of crime
It was not appreciated where the accused did not break the
door of the victims as means to commit robbery whit homicide,
where the accused, after breaking rope used to close the door
could have already entered the house
Breaking of shutters and framing of the door to insure the
elements of surprise does not aggravate the commission of
crime
To effect ENTRANCE only
It may be resorted to means to commit a crime in house or building
Example:
Murdered for the purpose of entering the house of victim,
breaks a wall or a window of house
Circumstance is aggravating only where the offender resorted to any
of said means to enter the house.
If walls, etc., is broken in order to get out of the place, is not
aggravating circumstance
Breaking a part of the building is one of means of entering the
building to commit robbery with force upon things (under Art 299 par
(a) and Art 302) it is inherent in this kind of robbery, thus breaking
a part of the building is not aggravating in that crime.
Breaking a door or window is lawful
Under Rule 113 Sec 11 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Officer, in order to make an arrest, either by virtue of warrant
or without warrant provided in Sec 5, may break into any
building or enclosure where person to be arrested is or
reasonably believed to be, if he refused admittance after
announcing his authority of purpose
Rule 126, Sec 7 (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
The officer, if refused admittance to place of directed search
after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open
any outer or inner door or window or any part of house to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully
aiding him when unlawfully detained.
Par. 20
2 d|fferent aggravat|ng c|rcumstances |n Paragraph 20
1
sl
ore lerds lo repress, so lar as poss|o|e, lre lrequerl pracl|ce resorled lo oy lre
proless|ora| cr|r|ra|s lo ava|| lrerse|ves ol r|rors la||rg advarlage ol lre|r
|rrespors|o|||ly; ard lre 2
rd
ore |s |rlerded lo courleracl lre greal lac|||l|es lourd oy
roderr cr|r|ra|s |r sa|d rears lo corr|l cr|re ard l|ee ard aoscord orce lre sare |s
corr|lled
|th the a|d of persons under 15 years of age"
A caused 8, a ooy 11 years o|d, lo c||ro lre Wa|| ol lre rouse ol C, lo erler lre sare
lrrougr |ls W|rdoWs, ard orce |rs|de, lo la|e as |r lacl 8 loo|, c|olres ard olrer persora|
properly |r lre rouse ol C. %rer 8 lrreW lrer lo lre grourd Wrere A p|c|ed lrer up.
%re aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce lral lre cr|re Was corr|lled W|lr lre a|d ol a persor
urder 15 years ol age srou|d oe la|er |rlo accourl aga|rsl A.
y means of motor veh|c|es"
use ol rolor ver|c|es |s aggraval|rg oecause lre sare lurr|sr a qu|c| rears lor lre
l||grl or corcea|rerl ol lre ollerder
%re use ol rolor ver|c|e W||| rol oe cors|dered as ar aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce Wrere
lrere |s ro sroW|rg lral lre rolor ver|c|e Was purpose|y used lo lac|||lale lre
corr|ss|or ol lre cr|re or Wrere |l |s rol sroWr lral W|lroul |l, lre ollerse cou|d oolr
rave oeer corr|lled.
Estafa, wh|ch |s comm|tted by means of dece|t or abuse of conf|dence, cannot be
comm|tted by means of motor veh|c|e
Case: Peop|e vs. 8aglas
A jeep Was used |r carl|rg aWay lre v|c|s vaporuo, We lee| lral lre cr|re ol eslala Was
rol corr|lled oy rears ol lre sa|d ver|c|e.
Theft, wh|ch |s comm|tted by mere|y tak|ng persona| property wh|ch need not be
carr|ed away, cannot be comm|tted by means of motor veh|c|es.
Case: Peop|e vs. Rea|
%re cu|pr|ls used a car ard, lor parl ol lre Way, a r|red jeep go|rg lo ard cor|rg lorr lre
p|ace Wrere lre cr|re (lrell_ Was corr|lled. ll Wou|d oe slrelcr|rg lre rear|rg ol lre
|aW loo lar lo say lral lre cr|re Was corr|lled oy rears ol rolor ver|c|es.
Examp|es of cr|mes comm|tted by means of motor veh|c|es.
A W|lr lre re|p ol 8 ard W|lr |eWd des|grs, lorc|o|y loo| ard carr|ed aWay a Worar oy
rears ol ar auloroo||e lo arolrer loWr. %re cr|re ol lorc|o|e aoducl|or Was corr|lled
W|lr lr|s aggraval|rg c|rcurslarce.
Case: Peop|e vs. Arao|a
use ol rolor ver|c|e Was aggraval|rg |r lrell Wrere a lruc| Was used |r carry|rg aWay
lre slo|er ra||s ard |ror ard Wooder l|es lror lre scere ol lre lrell lo lre p|ace Wrere
lrey Were so|d.
Case: Peop|e vs. 0e |a Cruz
Ever |l lre v|cl|rs rode vo|urlar||y |r lre jeeprey, s|rce lrey Were |ured ard la|er lo lre
p|ace Wrere lrey are ||||ed, lre used ol rolor ver|c|e Was cors|dered aggraval|rg
Case: Peop|e vs. Al|l|W
A jeep Was used oy lre appe||arls |r lelcr|rg ard |ur|rg lre deceased lror r|s rouse lo
go W|lr lrer or lre r|grl |r quesl|or, Wr|cr lrey rusl rave used a|so |r la||rg r|r lo lre
spol Wrere |aler or lre v|cl|r's oody Was lourd.
Case: Peop|e vs. Varas|gar
%re accused slaooed ard |rl||cled upor r|s g|r|lr|erd rorla| Wourds Wr|cr caused rer
dealr, Wr||e lrey Were or a lax| Wr|cr Was r|red ard used oy r|r
Case: peop|e vs. 0rg
%re care ol lre accused Was used |r lra|||rg lre v|cl|r's car up lo lre l|re lral |l Was
overla|er ard o|oc|ed. ll carr|ed lre v|cl|r or lre Way lo lre scere ol lre |||||rg; |l
corla|red al |ls oaggage corparlrerl lre p|c| ard srove| used |r d|gg|rg lre grave, |l
Was lre laslesl rears ol l|ee|rg ard aoscord|rg lror lre scere.
r other s|m||ar means"

%r|s express|or srou|d oe urderslood as relerr|rg lo rolor|zed ver|c|es or olrer ell|c|erl
rears lo lrarsporlal|or s|r||ar lo auloroo||e or a|rp|are.
Par. 21
Basis: ways employed in committing the crime
Cruelty: when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the consummation of the
criminal act, essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the
victim, requires deliberate prolongation of the physical suffering of the victim, cannot be
presumed, must be proven
Requisites:
1. that the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
2. that the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
: US vs. Oro cruelty in murder, burning the mouth S other body parts of an 11month old
infant
: People vs. Nariquina hogtied victim, A extracted v's left eye from its socket with the
pointed end of his cane, stuffed v's mouth with mud :] :]
: People vs. Beleno as Corazon screamed for help, one of the accused grabbed her, raised
her from the ground, other accused battered her with the butt of the rifle and pounded her
on the ground, C died of external and intracranial hemorrhage
: mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death
with no appreciable time intervening to show offender wanting to prolong suffering of victim
is NOT sufficient for cruelty, number of wounds alone does not show cruelty
: no cruelty when other wrong was done after victim was dead, there must be positive proof
that the wounds were inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong
physical suffering
: !gnominy involves moral suffering while cruelty refers to physical suffering
: Rapes, robbery and other forms of cruelties are aggravating circumstances of ignominy
and cruelty in treason (???)
: Rape is aggravating in murder victim already at the threshold of death, rape as a form of
ignominy causing disgrace or a form of cruelty rape unnecessary to consummate murder,
manifest outrage on the victim's person