d. Aggravating Circumstances (See also RA 9165, Sec. 25; RA 10175, Sec. 6; RA 10591, Sec. 29)

4. Aggravating Circumstances

R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630;

R.A. No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act);

R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) as amended by R.A. No. 10640 (An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government);

R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)

Qualifying Circumstance

Under Article 365, failure to lend the injured parties such help as the offender can give on the spot calls for the penalty next higher in degree; it is not a qualifying circumstance. [Art. 365, RPC]

e. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals (Sec. 8)

The presence of any controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the clandestine laboratory is a prima facie proof of manufacture of any dangerous drug. It shall be considered an aggravating circumstance if the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or established under the following circumstances:

• Any phase of the manufacturing process was conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s;
• Any phase or manufacturing process was established or undertaken within one hundred (100) meters of a residential, business, church or school premises;
• Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected with booby traps;
• Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with legitimate business operations; or
• Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

Outraging or scoffing at the victim or his corpse: additional qualifying circumstance not mentioned in Art. 14

• Outraging: to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act
• Scoffing: to jeer; implies a showing of irreverence

Art. 249. Homicide

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248

---

Notes:

• This article does not apply to the special complex crimes of Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294(1), Robbery with Rape under Art. 294(2), or Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries under the applicable paragraph of Art. 294.
• Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proved during trial. They cannot be offset by generic mitigating circumstances.

Art. 296. Definition of a Band and Penalty Incurred by Members Thereof

When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

---

Robbery is Deemed Committed by a Band when at least 4 armed malefactors take part.

Circumstances inherent in Treason: (EAT)

• Evident premeditation;
• Abuse of Superior Strength; and
• Treachery (People v. Adlawan, 83 Phil 195; People v. Racaza, 82 Phil 623)

Aggravating circumstances in Treason:

• Ignominy;
• Cruelty;
• Amount or degree of aid; and
• Gravity or seriousness of the acts of treason.

Special aggravating (qualifying) circumstances:

• Nighttime; or
• Papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately.

When unconsented entry is not violation of domicile

When a policeman, who got angry, forcibly entered the house of another and attacked the latter, the policeman is not liable for violation of domicile because he was not acting in an official capacity. He is liable instead for physical injuries with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

Elements of Concealing true name and other personal circumstances

• Offender conceals true name and other personal circumstances; and
• Purpose is to conceal identity

Qualifying circumstance:

With violence or threats.

Qualifying circumstances:

• When the assault is committed with a weapon;
• When the offender is a public officer or employee; or
• When the offender lays hands upon a person in authority

Qualifying circumstance

• If the 1st or 2nd act above is tumultuous in character, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
• Tumultuous – caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.

KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

• Generic: Generally apply to all crimes
• Advantage taken of public position;
• Contempt or insult of public authority;
• Crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party;
• Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness;
• Where crime is committed in palace of Chief Executive, in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged, or in a place for religious worship;
• Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band;
• Recidivism;
• Reiteracion or Habituality;
• Craft, fraud or disguise;
• Unlawful entry;
• Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door or window; and
• Use of persons under 15 years of age;
• Specific: Apply only to particular crimes
• Disregard of rank, age, or sex due the offended party in crimes against persons and honor;
• Advantage of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense;
• Treachery in crimes against persons;
• Ignominy in crimes against chastity;
• Cruelty in crimes against persons; and
• Use of a loose firearm in committing another crime: generally an aggravating circumstance, subject to Section 29’s penalty rules, its express treatment of murder or homicide, and its absorption rule for violations in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with rebellion, insurrection, or attempted coup d’état; (R.A. No. 10591, Sec. 29)
• Qualifying: Change the nature of the crime
• Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder; and
• Art. 248, RPC enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of a person to murder;
• Inherent: Must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime
• Evident premeditation in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage;
• Abuse of public office in bribery;
• Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a house in robbery with the use of force upon things;
• Fraud in estafa; and
• Deceit in simple seduction.
• Special: Those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances
• Quasi-recidivism;
• Taking advantage of public position and membership in an organized/syndicated crime group; and
• Use of unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder.

Complex crimes are treated separately under Art. 48, RPC; they are not special aggravating circumstances.

Note: Error in personae is not a special aggravating nor a mitigating circumstance (Reyes, Book I);

Updated: An offense committed through information and communications technology carries imprisonment and fines one degree higher, with the maximum fine increased by one-fourth but the statutory minimum unchanged (XXX v. People, G.R. No. 274842, 29 June 2026).

DIFFERENTIATING DIFFERENT KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

RULES ON AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Aggravating circumstances shall NOT be appreciated if:

• They constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or
• It is included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor. (Art. 62, par. 1)

E.g. “That the crime be committed by means of …fire, explosion” (Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself a crime of arson under P.D. No. 1613 or a crime involving destruction (Art. 324).

• If any aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62, par. 2)

Aggravating circumstances which arise from the following shall only aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories, to whom such circumstances are attendant:

• From the moral attributes of the offender;
• From his private relations with the offended party; or
• From any personal cause. (Art. 62, par. 3)

Aggravating circumstances which consist in the following shall only aggravate the liability of those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein:

• In the material execution of the act; or
• In the means employed to accomplish it. (Art. 62, par. 4)

Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind, should be specifically alleged in the information AND proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty (Sec. 9, Rule 110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)

When there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance present, one of them will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while the others will be considered as generic aggravating.

Not aggravating if the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying public position

The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime. (People v. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08)

Circumstances qualifying the offense: evasion of sentence was done through:

• Unlawful entry (by “scaling”);
• Breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors;
• Using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation; or
• Connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution

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

This circumstance, taking advantage of public position, cannot be taken into consideration in offenses where taking advantage of official-position is made by law an integral element of the crime, such as in malversation under Art. 217, or in falsification of documents committed by public officers under Art. 171. (People vs. Tevez, GR No. 19603)

Taking advantage of public position is not separately appreciated where it is an element of the particular offense or is inherent in its commission, including liability as an accessory under Art. 19, par. 3, when that liability rests on abuse of public functions. Not every offense under Arts. 204 to 245, RPC, requires the offender to be a public officer. (Arts. 19, par. 3, 212, and 62, pars. 1 and 2, RPC)

When the offender takes advantage of public position in committing the crime, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period, regardless of the nature and number of mitigating circumstances, unless taking advantage of public position is inherent in or an element of the offense. (Art. 62, RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 23)

If crime is committed against a public authority while he is in the performance of his official duty

The offender commits direct assault without this aggravating circumstance because it is not a crime committed "in contempt of or with insult" to him, but a crime directly committed against him. (Reyes, Book I)

When all four aggravating circumstances are present

If all the four circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only. (Reyes, Book I)

There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party

Rank was aggravating in the following cases: the killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal; the killing of the Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the Civil Service Commission by a clerk therein; the murder by a pupil of his teacher; the murder of a municipal mayor; the murder of a city chief of police by the chief of the secret service division; assault upon a 66-year-old CF judge by a justice of the peace (now municipal judge); the killing of a consul by a mere chancellor; and the killing of an army general. (Id)

Intent to insult required

Disregard of the rank of the barangay captain shall not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the absence of proof of the specific fact or circumstance that the accused disregarded the respect due to the offended party. It must be shown that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank of victim as barangay captain. (People v. Talay, G.R. No. L-24952)

AGE

To appreciate the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age, the accused must deliberately intend to offend or insult the age of the offended party. (People v. Onabia, G.R. No. 128288)

The circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age. (Reyes, Book I)

Intent to insult required

The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. (People v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-24002)

Intent to insult required

Disregard of sex is not aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood. (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211)

Not applicable in certain cases

• When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation (People vs. Ibanez, C.A.-G.R. No. 1137-R)
• When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender (People vs. Valencia, C.A., 43 O.G. 3740)
• When the victim’s sex is inherent in the particular offense charged, disregard of sex is not separately appreciated under Art. 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code. Neither parricide under Art. 246 nor all forms of rape under Art. 266-A categorically require a female victim.

Crime must be wholly or partly committed therein or in any integral part thereof

If the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder when he was assaulted, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling will not be applicable. (People vs. Sespene, G.R. No. L-9346)

Applies even if offender did not enter the dwelling

It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. (People v. Perreras, G.R. No. 139622)

Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the commission of the crime was begun in the dwelling. (Reyes, Book I)

Dwelling is not included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery. (People vs. Ruzol, 100 Phil. 537, 544)

Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance:

• Given by the offended party (the occupant whose dwelling is invoked);
• Sufficient; and
• Immediate to the commission of the crime.

If all these conditions are present, the fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is NOT an aggravating circumstance. (Reyes, Book I)

Close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling

Although the Code provides that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be properly taken into account if the provocation was given by the offended party, this is true only when there exists a close relation between the provocation and the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation came. (People v. Dequiña G.R. No. 41040)

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

• When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house.

Exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating. However, if the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of confidence.

• When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.

Exception: Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing of the offended party’s house.

• In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
• When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.
• The victim is not a dweller of the house.

2 Aggravating Circumstances under par. 4

• Abuse of Confidence
• Obvious Ungratefulness

They must be independently appreciated if present in the same case.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE

REQUISITES:

• That the offended party had trusted the offender;
• That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party; and
• That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

Example:

A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her to a ride in the country. The girl, unsuspecting of his plans, went with him. While they were in the car, the jealous lover stabbed her. It was held that this aggravating circumstance was present. (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583, 594)

Examples:

This circumstance was present in the case of the accused who killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially supported him. (People vs. Floresca, G.R. Nos. L-8614-15)

The circumstance was present where the victim was suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at least by doing him no harm, they took advantage of his helplessness when his two arms were used for carrying their food, thus preventing him from defending himself from the sudden attack. (People vs. Bautista, No. L-38624)

Official or religious functions, not necessary

The place of the commission of the felony (par. 5), if it is Malacañang palace or a church, is aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or religious functions are being held. (Reyes, Book I)

IN THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS PRESENCE

The Chief Executive need not be in Malacañang palace. His presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is enough to constitute the aggravating circumstance. This aggravating circumstance is present even if he is not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place where the crime is committed. (Id)

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

The aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship cannot be legally considered, where there is no evidence to show that the defendant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel on the fatal night. (People v. Jargiue, 76 Phil. 174, 182)

This ruling seems to be applicable also in case a crime is committed in Malacañang palace or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.

c. By a Band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. (PAR. 6)

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

Nighttime is aggravating when deliberately sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the offense or secure impunity

Nighttime is aggravating when it was especially sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime, or when the offender took advantage of the darkness for impunity; the timing and nature of the acts constituting the offense must be examined. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14(6))

Thus, although the safe was thrown into the bay at night, but the money, the taking of which constituted the offense, was withdrawn from the treasury during the daytime, the crime of malversation was not attended by the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. (U.S. vs. Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4, 7)

When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating

The fact that the scene of the incident was illuminated by the light on the street negates the notion that accused had especially sought or had taken advantage of night time in order to facilitate the commission of the crime of theft or for purposes of impunity. (People vs. Joson, C.A., 62 O.G. 4604) Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was conceived shortly before commission or when crime was committed at night upon a casual encounter. (People vs. Cayabyab, G.R No. 123073)

UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado)

One where there are no houses at all, or a place at a considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other.

This aggravating circumstance should not be considered when the place where the crime was committed could be seen and the voice of the deceased could be heard from a nearby house. (People vs. Laoto, 52 PHIL. 401, 408)

Whether or not the crime committed is attended by this aggravating circumstance should be determined not by the distance of the nearest house from the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. (Reyes, Book I)

Applicable only to crimes against persons or honor

Crimes in which commission by a band may be aggravating

“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of illegal detention or treason but does not apply to crimes against chastity. (People v Corpus, C.A. 43 O.G. 2249)

Inherent in brigandage

In the crime of brigandage, which is committed by more than 3 armed persons forming a band of robbers (Art. 306), the circumstance that the crime was committed by a band should not be considered as aggravating because it is inherent in or is necessarily included in the crime. (Reyes, Book I)

Absorbed in abuse of superior strength and use of firearms

The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their superior strength and with the use of firearms is absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of the commission of the offense by a band, (People vs. Escabarte, G.R. No. 42964) (Reyes, Book I) The use of a loose firearm is assessed separately under RA 10591, Sec. 29: it is generally an aggravating circumstance; if the crime committed with it has a maximum penalty lower than the penalty for illegal possession, the latter penalty is imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged, subject to the section’s other express rules.

When the armed men met up casually with others, and a crime was thereafter committed, it cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (Reyes, Book I)

Rule for the application of the circumstance

The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime was committed does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused did not avail of their aid or rely upon them to commit the crime. (Reyes, Book I)

Also applicable to the one who gave the price

When this aggravating circumstance is present, it affects not only the person who received the price or the reward, but also the person who gave it. (U.S. v. Parro, G.R No. 12607)

As a generic aggravating circumstance

When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstances only. (Reyes, Book I)

When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is murder

If the purpose of the explosion, inundation, fire or poison is to kill a predetermined person, the crime committed is murder. Once any of these circumstances is alleged in the information to qualify the offense, it should not be considered as generic aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increasing the penalty, because it is an integral element of the offense. (Reyes, Book I)

Each of the circumstances of "fire," "explosion," and " derailment of a locomotive" may be a part of the definition of particular crime, such as, arson (Art. 320), crime involving destruction (Art. 324), and damages and obstruction to means of communication (Art. 330).

In these cases, they do not serve to increase the penalty, because they are already included by the law in defining the crimes. (Id)

Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise

But this rule is only applicable insofar as the inducer is concerned, but not the person induced since one can be a principal by direct participation without the benefit of due reflection. (U.S. vs. Manalinde, G.R No. 5292)

Not necessary that there is a plan to kill a particular person

For premeditation to exist, it is not necessary that the accused planned to kill a particular person.

When the offender decided to kill a particular person and premeditated on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim. However, if the offender premeditated the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against the offender the aggravating circumstance of premeditation, because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his premeditation. (Reyes, Book I)

Not aggravating where:

• The unlawful scheme could have been carried out just the same even without the pretense. (People v. Aspili, G.R. Nos. 89418-19)
• Craft partakes of an element of the offense.

DISGUISE (disfraz)

Resorting to any device to conceal identity.

The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way for this one’s identification does not render the aggravating circumstance of disguise inapplicable. (People v. Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400)

The purpose of the offender in using any device must be to conceal his identity. (Reyes, Book I)

The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the offender was intended to or did make identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair or beard.

b. Means be employed to weaken the defense. (PAR. 15)

Par. 15 contemplates 2 aggravating circumstances, either of which qualifies a killing to murder. (Art. 248)

For abuse of superior strength, the test is the relative strength of the offender and the victim, and whether the offender deliberately took advantage of a notorious superiority of force.

When abuse of superior strength is aggravating

The aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. (People vs. Carpio, G.R. No. 82815-16)

Number of aggressors, if armed, may point to abuse of superior strength. (Reyes, Book I)

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

Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority or there is a notorious inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. (People v. Padilla, G.R No. 75508)

There is no abuse of superior strength when one acted as principal and the other two as accomplices. (Reyes, Book I)

Examples:

• Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a cloak over the head of his opponent then he wounds or kills him.
• When the offender, who had the intention to kill the victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially weakening the latter’s resisting power.

NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as robbery with physical injuries or homicide.

Treachery

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Treachery means that the offended party was not given an opportunity to make a defense. (Reyes, Book I)

REQUISITES:

• At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and
• The offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.

The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender, and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. The mode of attack could not have been thought of when the decision to shoot the deceased was sudden, in view of the latter's flight, and the relative positions of the victim and the killer were entirely accidental. (Reyes, Book I)

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself. In order to appreciate treachery, both elements must be present. It is not enough that the attack was "sudden," "unexpected," and "without any warning or provocation." There must also be a showing that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without risk to himself. (People v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 238171, J. CAGUIOA)

A victim’s being shot from behind does not, by itself, establish treachery; the prosecution must prove that the offender consciously adopted a method of attack that denied the victim an opportunity to defend himself. (People v. Enriquez, Jr., G.R. No. 238171) In People v. Ramolete (G.R. No. L-28108), treachery was established by the assailant’s deceptive approach with apparent pacific intent.

When treachery must be present:

• When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault. Even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot be said that the crime was attended by treachery. (People vs. Peje, 99 Phil. 1052)
• When the assault was not continuous, in that there was interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given. Hence, if there was a break in the continuity of the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the circumstance of treachery must be taken into account. (US v. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385)
• If the assault is continuous, treachery must be present at its inception. If there is an appreciable break in the aggression, treachery may be appreciated when present at the start of the renewed, fatal attack. Failing to prove the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the accused are guilty of the crime of homicide, not murder. (People v. Magallano, Jr. y Flores, G.R. 220721)

17. MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT (PAR. 17)

Meaning of “which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act”

• 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. (Reyes, Book I)
• Injured party must not be dead when the act causing ignominy was inflicted to him because the act must add to the injured party’s moral suffering. (People vs. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404)

Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately as aggravating circumstances in murders committed in a dwelling.

When the accused gained access to the dwelling by climbing through the window and once inside, murdered certain persons in the dwelling, there were two aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the crimes — dwelling and unlawful entry. (People vs. Barruga, 61 Phil. 318, 331)

"As a means to the commission of a crime."

To be considered as an aggravating circumstance, breaking the door must be utilized as a means to the commission of the crime. It is not to be appreciated where the accused did not break the door of the victims as a means to commit robbery with homicide where the accused after breaking the rope which was used to close the door could have already entered the house. Breaking of the shutters and the framing of the door to insure the elements of surprise does not aggravate the commission of the crime. (People vs. Capillas, No. L27177)

To effect entrance only

The circumstance of breaking a wall, roof, floor, door, or window is aggravating when the breaking is a means of committing the crime; the offender need not actually enter the building. This is distinct from unlawful entry. If the wall, etc., is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.

It is not necessary that the offender should have entered the building. What aggravates the liability is the breaking of a part of the building as a means of committing the crime. (Reyes, Book I)

b. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means. (PAR. 20)

2 different circumstances are grouped in this paragraph.

WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE

Intends to repress the frequent practice resorted to by professional criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility. (Albert)

Example: A caused B, a boy 14 years old, to climb the wall of the house of C, to enter the same through its window, and once inside, to take, as in fact B took, clothes and other personal property in the house of C. B threw them to the ground where A picked them up. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with the aid of a person under 15 years of age should be taken into account against A. (Reyes, Book I)

"By means of motor vehicles”

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and deliberately used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape. (People v. Espejo, No. L-27708)

If motor vehicle was used only in facilitating the escape

Where the use of a vehicle was not deliberate to facilitate the killing of the victim, the escape of the assailants from the scene of the crime, and the concealment of the body of the victim, but only incidental, it is not an aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Munoz, No. L-38016)

Example: Use of motor vehicle was aggravating in theft where a truck was used in carrying away the stolen rails and iron and wooden ties from the scene of the theft to the place where they were sold (People vs. Arabia, C.A., 53 O.G. 6569), and in robbery with homicide where a motor vehicle was used in transporting the accused. (People vs. Valeriano, 90 Phil. 15, 31, 35)

21.THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSION (CRUELTY) (PAR. 21)

CRUELTY

There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. (People vs. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423, 427)

To be aggravating, it is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain. (People vs. Llamera, G.R. Nos. L-21604-6)

No cruelty when other wrong was done after victim was dead

There must be positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong physical suffering. (People vs. Pacris, G.R. No. 69986)

If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed, this does not establish cruelty; it may qualify the killing as murder if the prosecution proves outraging or scoffing at the victim's person or corpse. (Art. 248, RPC)

NOTE: Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO provision for aggravating circumstances of a similar or analogous character.

22. OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

• USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARMS
• If homicide or murder is committed with the use of a loose firearm, its use is considered an aggravating circumstance. (RA 10591, Sec. 29)
• When a person commits any crime under the Revised Penal Code or Special Laws with the use of explosives including but not limited to pillbox, molotov cocktail bombs, detonation agents or incendiary devices resulting in the death of a person, the same is aggravating. (Sec. 3)
• COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
• When a crime is committed by an offender who is under the influence of dangerous drugs, such state shall be considered as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25)
• For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. (Sec. 5)
• If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed. (Sec. 5)

SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

• Violation of domicile: nighttime, papers or effects not returned immediately;
• Interruption of religious worship: violence or threats;
• Direct assault: weapon, offender is a public officer or employee, offender lays hands upon a person in authority;
• Grave threats: in writing, thru a middleman;
• Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons: uninhabited place, band, EXCEPT robbery with homicide or robbery with rape; and
• Robbery with force upon things: uninhabited place and by a band.
• Ignominy in crimes against chastity
• Cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Those that must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.

When relationship Is AGGRAVATING:

• Crimes against persons
• Where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same degree.
• The crime against persons is serious physical injuries, even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.
• The offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.
• In homicide or murder, relationship may be aggravating when it is not an element of the offense. Killing one’s child or other descendant constitutes parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, so relationship is not separately appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Article 62(1).
• In rape, relationship may be aggravating; where the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the victim's parent, the alleged and proved relationship is a qualifying circumstance under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353.
• Crimes against chastity
• In acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party.

When intoxication is AGGRAVATING:

• If intoxication is habitual; or
• If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).

It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse. (Reyes, Book I)

It is aggravating when intoxication is habitual, because the constant use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual resistance to evil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a potential evildoer against whose activities, society has the right for its own protection to impose a more severe penalty. (People v. Amenamen, C.A., 37 O.G. 2324)

When degree of instruction is AGGRAVATING:

High degree of instruction and education is aggravating when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Absolutory causes are neither justifying nor exempting circumstances but nonetheless similarly results in no criminal liability on the actor, not because they are justified (Art. 11, RPC) nor exempt (Art. 12, RPC), but because of public policy.