Art. 12.
Exempting Circumstances The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is
In exempting circumstances the act does not result in criminal
liability because the act is not voluntary or negligent.
There is absence of:
- Intelligence,
- Freedom of action,
- Intent, or
- Negligence
Exempting Circumstances
1. Insanity or imbecility
2. Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA 9344)
3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting without
discernment)
4. Performance of a lawful act with due care (accident)
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force (physical force)
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
(moral or psychological compulsion)
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or
insuperable cause
Article 12, Paragraph 1: An imbecile or an insane person
1. An imbecile or an insane person
An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while an
insane person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers
from a mental disorder (pp vs. ambal, oct. 17, 1980)
An insane person may have lucid interval while imbecile does
not have.
Rule on imbeciles and insane persons
Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime”
Insanity – “there must be complete deprivation of
intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the
freedom of the will.”
Crazy vs. Insane
“there is a vast difference between an insane person and one
who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger that
he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he does.”
insane. The popular meaning of the word “crazy” is not
synonymous with the legal term “insane,” (Ambal)
Presumption is in favor of sanity.
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the
absence of proof to the contrary” xxx “the law always
presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume
that acts were executed unconsciously.” (Ambal)
Burden of evidence
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of AMbal was not
substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of
sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of
reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally
wound his wife.
Presumption in favor of sanity.
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the
defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that
fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of decisions
by this court.” (PEOPLE VS. BASCOS, gr no. 19605, December
19, 1922)
BASCOS CASE
Circumstantial evidence:
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for
many years,
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified that
the accused was a violent maniac and that he may
have been insane when he killed the victim, and
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the
victim.
Quantum of evidence
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as
such must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the
commission of a crime is established, and the defense of
insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt,
conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
BONOAN CASE
a. Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice
(1922, 1926);
b. Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance
(authorities);
 c. Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or
leads to dementia praecox;
d. A day after his arrest he was sent to the Psychopathic
hospital.
e. Alienist reported that the accused had a form of
psychosis – Manic depressive psychosis.
Commission vs. Trial
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is
different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first
instance, it is an exempting circumstance, in the second the
accused is not exempt but the proceedings are suspended
until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Pp vs. Legaspi
“Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-
appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the incident.”
- No evidence that he was adjudged insane.
- Discharge is proof of being cured.
“Caught with his pants down”
“Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the
mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system,
where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one
from responsibility for crimes committed under its
influence.” (Legaspi)
PP vs. Madarang
The courts have established a more stringent criterion for
insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be
a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,
i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the
least discernment because there is a complete absence of the
power to discern
Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be
established by:
a. A witness who is intimately acquainted with the
accused,
b. A witness who has rational basis to conclude that the
accused was instance based on personal witness
c. Expert testimony
Madarang case
“the testimony or proof of the accused’s insanity must relate
to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of
the offense with which he is charged.”
“… proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or during
the commission of the crime”
PP vs. Opuran
A man’s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume
thecontrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously, for the
moral and legal presumptions..”
Stringent standard
The stringent standard …requires that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
Facts in Opuran
- Such unusual behavior may be considered as mere
abnormality of the mental faculties, which will not
exclude imputability;
- Medicine was not shown to be for any mental illness;
- Was never confined in a mental institution;
- Dr. Verona’s findings were not based on incomplete
and insufficient facts’
- Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest opportunity;
Article 12, Paragraph 2: Minority
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
New concepts:
1. Age of criminal responsibility
2. Effects
3. Presumptions
Age of criminal responsibility
A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of
the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal
liability. (Sec. 6)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series
of activities which are designed to address issues that caused
the child to commit an offense.
Section 3(1), RA 9344
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are deisgned
to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense.
It may take the form of an individualized treatment program
which may include counseling skills training, education and
other activites that will enhance the capcacity of the child.
Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
 - Release parents, guardian or nearest relative. More than 6 years
- Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate programs.
- O/W: Diversion by the court.
-NGO; Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.
-Barangay;
-Local SWD off or DSWD; - Restitution
- Reparation
Above 15 but below 18 - Indemnification
Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to - Written or oral apology
intervention. - Care, guidance and supervision orders
- Counseling
With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e., - Trainings, seminars and lectures
diversion. -anger management
-problem solving
No exemption from civil liability. -values formation
-other skills to aid the child
Discernment
-participation in community based
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the programs
difference between right and wrong. -participation in education, vocation and life
skills programs
It may be shown by:
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level
- Manner of committing a crime
- Conduct of offender - All the programs at the barangay level
- Appearance of the minor; - Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
- Attitude;
Kinds of Diversion, Court
- Comportment;
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial. - Court
- All programs at barangay and law enforcement
Determination of age
- Written or oral reprimand
- Birth certificate; (best document to determine age) - Fine
- Baptismal certificate; - Payment of the cost of proceedings
- Other pertinent document; - Institutional care and custody

In the absence of the documents mentioned (these are the
instances where minority will be considered):
- Testimony of the child or other persons
- Physical appearance
- Other relevant evidence
CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)
Imposable Penalty
Not more than 6 years
- Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if
appropriate (where there is a private offended
party).
- In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
Sec. 58.Offenses not applicable to children.
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);
- Mendicancy (PD 1563);
- Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
Pp vs. Arpon
Although the acts of rape in this case were committed before
RA No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said law is still
applicable xxx “with more reason, the Act should apply to a
case wherein the conviction by the lower court is still under
review.”
Arpon case
 - Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape
- Supreme Court – 3 counts
1st count –exempt, accused 13 years old;
2nd& 3rd – accused 17 years old, discernment,
Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower (death)
- Suspension of sentence no longer an option, accused
29 years old;
- Case remanded to trial court for compliance with
Sec. 51, Agricultural camp or other facility.
“Sec. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who are
Exempt from Criminal Responsibility (RA 10630)”
Article 12, Paragraph 4: Accident
Elements:
- Performance of a lawful act;
- With due care;
- Injury is caused to another by mere accident;
- There is no fault or intention of causing the injury.
Definition
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of
our will, and although it comes about through some act of our
will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences. (Pp vs. Agliday)
Pp vs. Genita, GR NO. 126171, March 11, 2004.
“He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he
was performing a lawful act with due care, 2.) injury caused
was by a mere accident, and 3.) he had no fault or intention
of causing the injury.”
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed
by “any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.”
Performance of a lawful act
For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the
act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is
not a lawful act. (Agliday)
Intent is a mental state
It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental
state, the existence of which is shown by a person’s overt
acts. (Agliday)
Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to
be cocked first before it could discharged.
Dual standard
Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the
incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of
lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or
negligence.(Pomoy vs. Pp, GR No. 150647, September 29,
2004)
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance
of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other
hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated
intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent
danger. (Pomoy)
Article 12, Paragraph 5: Compulsion of an irresistible force
Elements:
- Compulsion is by physical force;
- The physical force is irresistible;
- The physical force must come from a third person.
Exempted from criminal liability
“because he does not act with freedom.”
“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without
will but against his will”
“must be present, imminent and impending and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death
or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.”
“A threat of future injury is not enough.”
“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat.” (Pp vs. Loreno, GR NO. L-54414, July 09,
1984)
PP vs. Loreno
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable
fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. The force must be
irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not
only without will but against his will… A threat of future injury
is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as
to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-
defense in equal combat.
Article 12, Paragraph 6: Impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an equal or greater injury.
Elements:
- The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
injury
Opportunity to escape
“ at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer Esguerra and Romeo
Bautista were waiting for both appellants from a distance of
about one (1) kilometer. By not availing of this chance to
escape, appellants allegation of fear or duress becomes
untenable.
Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force
Article 12, Paragraph 7: Prevented by Insuperable Cause
Elements:
- An act i
Insuperable cause
Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo)
Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian)
Absolutory causes
Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons
of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
- Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);
- Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
- Art. 124 (violent insanity)
- Art. 247 (death under exceptional circumstances)
- Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to
dwelling)
- Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and malicious
mischief)
- Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the
offended party in SARA (Seduction, Abduction, Rape,
Acts of Lasciviousness)
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no
encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another,
and prevent him from committing crime, we should at least
abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading him into
temptation.” (Saunders vs. Pp, Mich. 218, 222)
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002.
“… Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent
lures the accused into committing the offense in order to
prosecute him.”
“Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and
considered an absolutory cause.”
Degree of inducement in instigation
In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if it
were not for the inducements of the instigator.
Such inducement must be of such a nature the instigator
himself becomes a co-principal.
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public
officer or one who is performing public functions.
If the instigator is private individual, both the instigator and
the person helping are held to be criminally liable.
Entrapment vs. Instigation
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method
of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.
Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of
the would-be accused into the commission of the offense.
(Pp vs. Legaspi, GR No. 173485, November 23, 2011)
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal plan. The means of committing the
crime originates from the mind of the criminal.
Buy-bust operation
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent
years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly
employed by police officers as an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime.
In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the
alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation.
Where the testimony of the informer is indispensable, it
should be disclosed. (Pp vs. Ong, GR No. 137348, June 21,
2004)
Instigation vs. Entrapment
Instigation
- Induces accused into commission of crime
- The accused must be acquitted
- It is the law enforcer who conceives the commission
of the crime and suggests to the accused
Entrapment
- Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture
lawbreaker in the execution of the offense
- Is not a bar to prosecution
- The means originate from the mind of the criminal.
Mitigating circumstances
Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely
free the actor from criminal liability.
Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary only
serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the nature
of the crime.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.
Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the penalty
w/o exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Generic – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g.,
dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
Specific – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in
crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against
persons.
Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery
qualifies killing to Murder.
Inherent – must of necessity accompany the commission of
the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the purpose
of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2)
Generic
- Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding the
maximum.
- Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance
Qualifying
- Place the offender in no other situation as to deserve
any other penalty
- Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance
Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense given
by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it.
PP vs. Elona
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled
that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although
proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not
alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the cases
at bar were committed in 1999, before the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure took effect on Dec 1, 2000, the Court shall
give its effect”
1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
What is important is that the offender is a public officer
and he takes advantage of his public position to commit
the crime.
…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which his
office gives him as the means by w/c he realizes his
purpose.” (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)
Pp vs. Villamor
To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public
officer must use the influence…
US v sTorrida
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed
him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been
councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to
pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being
councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to
collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the
payments.
Pablo vs. Pp
“The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police
officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position
to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers
they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding
the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their
money. Precisely it was on account of their authority that
Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a
crime and would be brought to the police station for
investigation unless they gave them determined.”
Pp vs. Magayac
That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU
and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does
not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public
position to commit the crime.”
Pp vs. Fallorina, GR 137347, March 4, 2004
There is no dispute that the appellant is a policeman and that
he used his service firearm, the .45 caliber pistol, in shooting
the victim. However, there is no evidence on record that the
appellant took advantage of his position as a policeman when
he shot the victim. The shooting occurred only when the
appellant saw the victim on the rooftop playing with his kite.
The trial court erred in appreciating abuse of public position
against the appellant.
Pp v Herrera, GR 140577-58, December 5, 2001
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the
crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse
of public position. The mere fact that accused-appellant is a
policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber
revolver to kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he
misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
But in…
“Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary,
committed the crime with an armalite, which was issued to
him when he received the mission order.” (Pp v Gapasin, GR
73489, April 25, 1993)
2. In contempt of or w/insult to the public authorities
Requisites:
1. A public authority is engaged in the exercise of
fuctions
2. The public authority is not eh person against whom
the crime is committed.
3. That offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. The presence of the public authority does not
prevent the commission of the crime by the offender
Public Authority
Public authority should be construed as a person in
authority*, i.e., one who is vested with jurisdiction, that is,
one who has the power to govern and execute the laws
An agent of a person in authority is no included in this
circumstance.
*Art. 152, RPC
Public officer should not be the object of the offense.
“Neither can the aggravating circumstance that the crime
was committed with insult to public authority be appreciated
as the crime was committed against the public authority
himself.” (Pp v Gutierrez, GR 116281, February 8 ,1999)
3. Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of Offended
Party.
Age may refer to the victim’s advanced or very young age.
For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be
evidence that the accused deliberately intended to insult the
rank, age, or sex of the offended party.
Deliberate intent
“The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex cannot be
considered because it was neither been prove nor admitted
by the defendant that in committing the crime he had
intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim.” (Pp v
Mangsant, GR 45704, May 25, 1938) In this case the accused
stabbed a 14-year old girl.
Crimes against persons or honor
With respect to disregard of age and sex, the Court has
pronounced in the case of People v COllado that the same
may appreciated only in crimes against persons or honor.
(Pp v Hernandez, GR 139697, June 15, 2004)
Dwelling of Offended Party
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for
rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure or a
portion thereof.
Privacy and sanctity of home
It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily
because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the
human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him
or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio)
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
“As to whether the crime must be held to have been
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it
that although the accused were found with the deceased at
the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be
regarded as an integral part of the dwelling of that family.
The porch of a house, not common to different neighbors, is
a part of the dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the
dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.
“There must be a close relation between provocation and
commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from
whom the provocation came.”
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile
names, started the trouble. This vile language was not
directed at the accused, but to her daughter. This was,
however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to
demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly
insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the
aggravating circumstance of morada existed.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the
commission of the crime and had no particular relation to the
house of the deceased. If the defendant had entered the
house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and the
wife of the defendant in the act of adultery, the aggravating
circumstance of morada would not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling.
1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the
commission of the crime, and
2. There must be a close relation between the
provocation and the crime committed.
Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance
primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
to the human abode. However, in the present case, Rosalyn
was not raped therein. Although she was abducted
therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged with forcible
abduction with rape but only with rape. Considering that she
was not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.
Pp vs. Caliso
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since
the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was
sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
 The offended party trusts the offender,
 That offender abused such trust, and
 The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.
Pp v Caliso, GR 37271, July 1, 1933
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since
the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was
sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public
authorities are engaged in the discharged of duties or in a
place dedicated to public worship.
Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public
worship – official or religious functions need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties – there must be some performance of public
functions.
Intent to commit the crime
There must be evidence that the accused had the intention
to commit a crime when he entered the place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the
commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating
circumstance only as a general rule although they can be
considered separately if their elements are distinctly
perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater
degree of perversity.” Pp vs. Librando
PP vs. Silva
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially
sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him;
or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring
the offender’s immunity from capture.
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly
shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”
Darkness or obscurity
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the
obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological
onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity
does not become a modifying factor when the place is
adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
offender’s immunity from identification or capture.” Pp vs.
Carino
Uninhabited place
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to
receive some help in the place of the commission of the
crime.
Pp vs. Rubia
“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been
committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the
incident having taken place at sea where it was difficult for
the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could
easily have escaped punishment…”
Pp vs. Lumandong
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place
under Article 14 (6) was correctly appreciated against the
appellant.
Band
This circumstance is present when more than three armed
men acted together in the commission of the offense.
In other words the four armed men must directly participate
in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
Pp vs. Magdamit
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission thereof. In the present case, there were seven
armed conspirators involved in the commission of the
composite crime.
Pp v Dinamling, GR 134605, March 12, 2002
All four accused-appellants were armed, three with long
firearms and the other with a short one. They all took part in
the commission of the robbery with homicide, poking their
guns at their victims’ heads, tying them up, ransacking the
house, killing the two victims.
Pp vs. Lozano
The Code does not define or require any particular arms or
weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature
or the purpose for which it was made or used by the accused,
is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim
of the crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the
law on cuadrilla.
Guns and Knives.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the
aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by a
band. In the crime of robbery with rape, band is considered
as an aggravating circumstance. The prosecution established
that one of the accused was armed with a handgun, while the
other three had knives when they committed the crime. (Pp
v Evangelio, GR 181902, August 31, 2011)
7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage of
the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime.
8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
The armed men must not participate in the execution of the
felony otherwise they are co-principals.
Must be accomplices
Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires
that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor
capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four accused
were charges as principals. The remaining suspects – were
never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as
to the nature of their participation. (Lozano)
9. Recidivism.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Recidivism, requisites.
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime;
3. That both the first and second offense are embraced
in the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense.
Criminal propensity
There is no recidivism if the second conviction is for a crime
committed before the commission of the crime involved in
the first conviction.
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial.
2. He previously served sentence for another offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new
offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.
Recidivism
- Offender is convicted by final judgment
- The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
- The offenses are embraced in the same title of the
RPC, penalty is immaterial
Habituality
- Offender serves out his sentence in the previous
sentence
- two or more crimes:
light penalty
11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
The price, reward or promise must be the primary
consideration of the offender in committing the crime.
Includes the person who gives the reward.
In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered
primarily because there was no conclusive evidence and the
circumstance was not alleged in the information.
Pp vs. Alicanstre
“The talledo case is not authority on this question.”
“Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence is
to the effect that the aggravating circumstance of the price.”
Greater moral depravity
In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in
the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may
evince even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in the
acceptor. (Alincastre)
Pp v Canete, GR L-37945, May 28, 1984
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of price was present
in the commission of the crime and this affects not only the
person who received the money or the reward but also the
person who gave it.
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion,
stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of locomotive, or any other artifice involving
great waste or ruin.
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by
the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by
means of…”
Pp vs. Comadre
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and bymeans
of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view
but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of
attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance
should qualify the offense instead of treachery which then be
relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.
13. Evident premeditation.
Requisites:
1. the time when the offender determined to commit
the crime;
 2. an act manifestly indicating the culprit’s
determination to commit the crime;
3. a sufficient lapse of time between determination and
execution.
US v The Moro Manalinde, GR 5292, August 28, 1909
“As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that
the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the
journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately
considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the
nature and the consequences of the acts which, under orders
received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and
to that end provided himself with weapon, concealing it by
wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night
for the sole purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate
persons…”
Pp v Duavis, GR 190861, Decemer 7, 2011
To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the
decision and the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant
to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
effectively and efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior
to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued
that there was some kind of premeditation on the part of
appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident.
*Altercation – 3:00 p.m; Assault – 5:00 pm
Pp v Hilario, GR 128083, March 16, 2001
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken
into account when the person whom the defendant proposed
to kill was different from the one who became his victim.
When the person decided to kill a different 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.
Differentiated from Manalinde
The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the
tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first
encountered, does not bar the consideration of the
circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the
circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of
the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the same,
and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not
affect nor alter the nature of the crime. (Manalinde)
14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise.
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning.
Craft should also be appreciated as aggravating the crime of
homicide since it was shown that the victims, particularly the
unsuspecting Quillosa, were lured by the accused into coming
with them on the pretext that the formoer would only
accompany Rivera to accept the proceeds of the sale of a gun.
(Pp v Michael Nunez, GR 112429-30, July 23, 1997)
Disguise
 Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity
 To facilitate the commission of the crime
 Offender takes advantage of the disguise
It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly
had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy
accounterment could not constitute the aggravating
circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a
superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid
identification. (Pp v Reyes, GR 118649, March 9, 1998)
Pp v Cabato, GR L-37400, April 15, 1988
Likewise, the Court considers disguise as another aggravating
circumstance. The accused, together with two others, wore
masks to cover their faces. There could have been no other
purpose for this but to conceal their identities particularly for
Cabato who was very much known to the offended parties.
The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving
the way for Cabato’s identification will not render this
aggravating circumstance inapplicable.
Pp v Cunanan, GR L-30103, January 20, 1977
The male malefactors resorted to a disguise. That
circumstance did not facilitate the consummation of the
killing. Nor was it taken advantage of by the malefactors in
the course of the assault.
They announced their presence at the scene of the crime with
shouts and gunshots. That mode of attack counteracted
whatever deception might have arisen from their disguise.
15. Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be
employed to weaken the defense.
“..must show that the accused were physically stronger than
the victim, and that they abused such superiority by taking
advantage of their combined strength to consummate the
offense.” (Pp v Drew, GR 127368, December 3, 2001)
Pp v Padilla, GR 75508, June 10, 1994
Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the
offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious
inequality of forces 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.
Pp v Amodia, GR 177356, November 20, 2008.
To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of
superior strength, what should be considered is whether the
aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in
number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There
must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used
excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to
the person attacked.
 Atty Carillo: If in numerical superiority: must be
attacked simultaneously.
Pp v Ventura, GR 148145046, July 5, 2004
On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has
consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes the circumstance of abuse of what superiority
which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him,
and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
 Atty Carillo: armed man against unarmed
woman = abused of superior strength
Means employed to weaken defense.
The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could
not put up any sort of defense otherwise that would be a case
of treachery.
Pp v Ducusin, GR 30724, August 8, 1929
The aggravating circumstance defined in article 10, no.9, of
the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken
the defense, consisting in this case, in having made the
deceased intoxicated, must be taken into account.
16. Treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means methods, or in
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offender might make. (PP
v Gidoc, GR No 185162, Apr 24, 2009)
Present (Pp v Gidoc, GR 185162, April 24, 2009)
1. Crimes against persons
2. Means and methods of execution tend directly and
specially to insure its execution
Essence of treachery
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on
an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the
latter’s part. (Gidoc)
Pp v YANSON, GR 179195, October 3, 2011
Verily, [appellant] employed means which insured the killing
of [Magan] and such means assured him from the risk of
[Magan’s] defense had he made any. It must also be noted
that [Magan] was stabbed four times in the back and two of
these wounds were the proximate cause of death. Stabbing
from behind is a good indication of treachery
Pp v Regalado, GR 177302, April 16, 2009
The essence of treachery is deliberate and sudden attack that
renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself
by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.
In the case at bar, Chu was caught off-guard when, after he
was asking forgiveness from Regalado, the latter suddenly
drew a curved knife and stabbed and pursued the following
victim. And once Regalado and his co-appellants cornered
Chu, Aragon kicked and punched him while Lopez stabbed
him several times to thus preclude Chua from defending
himself.
Treachery cannot be presumed
It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown
beyond reasonable doubt; every qualifying or aggravating
circumstance alleged to have been present and to have
attended such killing must similarly be shown by the same
degree of proof.
Atty Carillo : Manner of killing must be clearly establioshed
(Pp v Abdulah, GR 182518, January 20, 2009)
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential elements are
present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or forms of attack employed by him. (VELASCO v.
PP)
Means must be consciously adopted
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s
attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without
means of escape. There is no doubt that appellant’s use of a
caliber .45 pistol, as well as his act of waiting for Inspector
Barte to be seated first in the jeep before approaching him
and of shooting Inspector Barte several times on the head
and chest, was adopted by him to prevent Inspector Barte
from retaliating or escaping. (Pp v Guevarra, GR 182192,
Octover 29, 2008)
Not in a position to defend himself.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked from
behind and at close range. The assailant further hid behind
the window to mask his presence and identity. (Pp. v. Dela
Pena)
Baluyot and Canete
If the aggression is continuous treachery must be present at
the beginning of the assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that
treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was
delivered. It is this interruption that gives the accused the
time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and
method of execution.
“… with treachery”
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the
intended victim is not incompatible with the existence of
treachery. Treachery may be taken into account even if the
victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused
intended to kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
Frontal assault.
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since
its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a
chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his
person. (Pp v. Agacer)
17. Ignominy.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
which adds disgrace and obloquy (shame) to the material
injury caused by the crime.
Means are employed or circumstances surround the act that
tend to make the crime more humiliating. (US v ABAIGAR, GR
1255, August 17, 1903)
 Atty Carillo: Causing unnecessary shame.
US v. De Leon
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of
Article 10, proved by the fact that the deceased, a land
owner, was forced to kneel in front of his four servants drawn
up in line before him.
Pp v. Acaya
The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and
in the presence of many persons did not necessarily tend to
make the effects of the crime more humiliating or put the
offended party to shame.
Pp v. Siao
It has been held that where the accused in committing the
rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior,
female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry
from behind, as was proven like the crime itself in the instant
case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.
18. Unlawful entry.
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)
19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the commission
of the crime.
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the
latter the window or point of ingress need not be broken.
 Atty Carillo: There must be destruction involved
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle,
airships or other similar means.
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used in
the commission of the crime.
Besides, it has been established during the trial that the
accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the
crime in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating
their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)
 Atty Carillo: If you use a vehicle to kill a person,
it becomes a qualifying circumstance to murder.
But if its just other crimes like physical injuries:
ordinary.
21. Cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy
which refers to moral suffering, i.e. disgrace or shame.
 Atty Carillo: Unnecessary physical
suffering/torture
Test in appreciating cruelty
Using a hammer to hurt a little child, SC ruled that it was
because of the drug intoxication of accused.
… whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not
necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the
victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or
corpse.. The culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim
suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical
pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the
criminal act which he intended to commit. (Pp v. Sitchon)
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
Alternative circumstances may be considered either as
aggravating or mitigating circumstances according to the (1)
nature and effects of the crime and (2) other conditions
attending to its commission.
- Relationship,
- Intoxication,
- Degree of instruction and education.
Relationship
- Spouse
- Ascendant
- Descendant
- Brother or sister
- Relative by affinity
Other relatives by analogy.
- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter.
- Adopted parent and adopted child.
Not included
- Uncle and niece.
- Cousins.
- Relationship between a step-grandniece and her
step-grandfather is not one of the relatives
specifically enumerated therein.
Generally relationship is…
- Mitigating – crimes against property
- Aggravating – crimes against persons where
offended party is of a higher degree than offender or
of the same level.
Exceptions
- In serious physical injuries relationship is aggravating
no matter the degree of relationship.
- In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
- In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.
Pp v. Orillosa
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15 of
the RPC should be appreciated against the appellant. In
crimes of chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship
is considered aggravating. Inasmuch as it was expressly
alleged in the information and duly proven during trial that
the offended party is the daughter of appellant, relationship,
therefore, aggravated the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Pp v. Glodo
The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at
the time of the crime was committed and that she is the
daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely
presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of
Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving
the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant so
as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
Relationship as element of the offense.
Parricide – victim is father, mother, child, ascendant,
descendant or spouse
Adultery – wife
Concubinage – husband
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in the
aggravating. first grade in a public school, but only to him who really has
not received any instruction.
Intoxication
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Mitigating
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his
(1) not habitual or own actions.
(2) unintentional/accidental/not subsequent to the plan
to commit the felony. When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable.

Aggravating In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the

degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional / subsequent to the plan to commit the
felony.

Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is not

sufficient.

Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of

liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the test
is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental faculties, to
the extent of blurring his reason and depriving him of self-
control.

Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellant’s state of

intoxication, we are unable to agree that the alternative
circumstance of intoxication was present to aggravate the
offense. (pp v. Inggo, GR 14082, June 23, 2003)

Presumption

When the accused is established to be drunk, the

presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental and,
therefore, mitigating.

Degree of instruction or education

Mitigating when there is lack of instruction or education.

There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.

Exceptions:

- crimes against property

- crimes against chastity
- murder

Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or

education when taken advantage of by offender.

Pp v. Mangsant