AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Without exceeding maximum penalty provided by law for that offense

Based on the greater perversity of offender
Manifested in the felony as shown by:
Motivating power
The place of commission
Means and ways employed
The time
Personal circumstances of offender or offended party

If the crime is homicide and there are 10 aggravating circumstance we don’t go directly to
murder

Generic aggravating circumstances- everything in article 14

However, in certain crimes such as murder, some of these circumstances are qualified
But in treachery, it is not always qualifying, it may be aggravating in serious physical injuries

specific aggravating circumstances- they apply only to particular felonies

For example: ignominy- it applies to crimes against persons
Same with cruelty

Difference of special and specific aggravating circumstances

Special- you cannot find it in article 14, found in other felonies or offenses

Special Vs Qualifying
Qualifying: not only increases the penalty, it actually changes the nature of the crime
- It does not increase the penalty, it changes it to a higher crime, hence it provides a
higher penalty
Special- does not change the nature of the crime

Generic vs Special
Generic- can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; put in maximum period
Special – cannot be offset; sometimes put the penalty in the maximum period; sometimes
imposes the maximum penalty

Example: Special:
1. RA 7659, when offender commits the crime using an organized crime in relation to
Article
Effect: penalty in maximum
2. Killing with an un licensed gun- special law

Must allege qualifying circumstances, and prove in trial

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

You must allege even generic in the information. If not alleged but proven during trial, it can
impose claim/exemplary damages.

Recit
Paragraph 1: That advantage be taken by the offending of his public position
1. Essence
2. Suppose that a janitor of the supreme court falsifies a roll of an attorney (presuming
that his son/daughter did not pass the bar), can you apply the circumstance? Is he a
public officer?
3. Suppose that a man, police officer, found out that his wife has another man, he was
furious, he went to the mall and fired at his wife and the other man, did he take
advantage of his public position?
4. Police officer goes to mall/office of his wife, passed through the entrance and was
searched by the guards carrying his firearm, told the guards he was a police officer and
had a permit then killed his wife, did he take advantage of his position?
5. The accused was a councilor, as soon as he assumed position, told the public that
everyone who owns large cattle must pay a certain amount or fine. Can you appreciate
the circumstance in this case? Does this have a connection in his office?
6. Suppose that the crime committed by the public official was bribery, will you aggravate
this circumstance with abuse of public position?
7. A police officer was talking to the victim at the other side of the door and told the victim
to surrender with him peacefully. Once the door was opened, he shot and killed the
victim. The police officer was charged with murder qualified by?? Treachery. Is he taking
advantage of public position? Will this be separate from treachery? Will it be absorbed?
8. What is the pronouncement of the court when the accused kills the victim wearing a
uniform? Will the wearing of a uniform aggravating?
9. Suppose that X rang the doorbell and the helper opened it with the former saying that
he was a police officer, NBI and told that he was there to interview the employer. Once
he got it, he started robbing the house, will you consider the circumstance in this case?
How about instead of robbing, he killed the employer and other people in the house?

Lecture: Basis of this circumstance

-Do not consider public employee
-Justice who falsified roll of attorney?
-only a public officer Except in the crimes under Title 7 including falsification of public
document or Art 171 par 1(inherent)
-RA 7659 –Art 62 1.a – special aggravating circumstance not generic
Essence: takes advantage of the prestige of his office, even though it goes beyond the
duties of his office as long as he took advantage of his office
-The crime of malversation is not aggravated by fraud
Suppose that a public officer says that you can have gambling in his house because the
police won’t check it, will the circumstance be applicable? Yes (but anti-gambling is a
special law so not affected)

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

 Will this circumstance applicable when an officer uses his firearm? General rule: NO
X rings the doorbell, said he was from NBI, and robbed the house, is the circumstance
applicable? No, he employed intimidation.
-absorbed in treachery at times
-Police saw that B stabbed A and hid the former in his home? Did he commit the crime
with taking advantage of his position? No. he did not stab A. He is an accessory.

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

10. Requisites
11. Suppose that a mayor was there, when a vendor started to fight will this be
appreciated? What if the mayor intervened and sustained physical injuries? In direct
assault will you appreciate this circumstance? Is this circumstance applicable to agents
of person in authority?

In the case of People vs Rodil, cited in Boado, “chief of police”

“person in authority” ONLY. Not applicable to agents- applied in recent cases

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

-if X kills Y in Malacanang Palace, will the circumstance be appreciated? Yes, even though
the president is not around.
How about x kills y, the president is there but not performing his official duty? Yes, as long
as the crime is committed inside the palace
How about if killing is outside the palace in the presence of the president? Yes

-Applicable to places devoted for religious worship: even if no ceremony;

Theft in a chapel? No, because it is not a place of public worship
Not necessarily a church, as long as for public place for worship
-X kills Y in a building devoted for public worship only for that day? No, not actively devoted
for public service. There must be regularity

Public officer in discharge of official duty: there must be an activity going on

-lack of disrespect
Election time: x kills y in the Comelec precinct, will that be considered an office? Yes
-the judge called the defendant and plaintiff into his chambers in order to settle the case
before they begin, the defendant stabs the plaintiff, applicable? No, because the judge is
not performing his official function even though he is in his official place of work.

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

Paragraph 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

-Do not consider when the crime is a result of loss of volitional faculties for example passion
or obfuscation, vindication

Disregard of Sex: female only, crimes against person, chastity, security

-in parricide, rape: no disregard, being a female is element, there is a relationship
-teacher insulted male student, student killed teacher: no, being a woman is not a factor
- a woman was inside her house, X knowing that she was alone robbed the house,
applicable? No
-treachery absorbs disregard of sex
-X kills Y, X was imprisoned. Relatives of Y want to avenge the death so they decided to kill a
female relative of X; yes, applicable

Disregard of Age:
Not only of old age (vigor of youth), also tender age
53, robust Vs 85? Yes
When there is pre-existing relationship, not applicable
-teacher inflicts punishment on a child, NO, if disciplinary measure

Disregard of rank; big disparity in rank

Eg fisherman vs lawyer? Yes
Colonel vs general? no
Is being a subordinate a factor? Not necessarily, even no existing relationship

Dwelling: definition
-is a market stall a dwelling? No
-make shift room? No
-the victim was the only who slept in the market for a long time: dwelling because of the
facts and circumstances
-if provocation was given by the victim inside his home then dwelling is not aggravating
-does the offender have to enter the dwelling? As long as the attack or started in the
dwelling even if it ended elsewhere
-Vacationers and visitors
-x visited sister to have lunch, he was killed: not aggravating, only a visitor (does not dwell)
-x slept there for one day: aggravating, he was protected by the roof, same intimacy of
dwelling
*Combination of a house and a store: not a dwelling,
House with different floor: he was killed in the 1st(store)-not aggravating
2nd floor(house)- yes
Can a person have several dwellings? Yes

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

 Adjoining store and room: store adjoins the room: aggravating as long as crime begun his
dwelling
-foot of stairs dwelling? Yes
-about to step, another foot on the ground? Not dwelling
-dwelling not aggravating in adultery if they all live in the same house because they have
equal rights in dwelling
-aggravating to the wife even though the paramour doesn’t live there and crime was
committed inside the family home because it was a joint act(adultery)
-X prostitute sleeps in the prostitution house, her husband kills her there, is it dwelling? -
no, public place;
-bed spacer- private place, dwelling

Paragraph 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

Confidence: trust reposed by the offended upon the offender which facilitated the
commission of the crime
-Suppose offender and offended party lived in the same house, not necessarily that there is
trust between the parties, there must be another relationship, superior, like guardianship.
-abuse of confidence vs Betrayal of Confidence
Abuse of confidence: relationship is direct and personal; some amount of time
eg BF-GF
baby and yaya: baby cannot do anything to protect himself

Betrayal of confidence: indirect relationship:

- mother/employer & driver: driver killed the child of mother/employer

*mother sent child to manila to study under the care of X, X raped child, Betrayal of
confidence
*mother sent child to manila to study under the care of X, X raped child after 6 months,
Abuse of confidence, there is already personal trust between them
*mother sent child to manila to study under the care of X, X tried to rape the child week
after weeks then was able to accomplish it, betrayal of confidence, no trust reposed
Obvious ungratefulness: there was a beggar, x brought her home, beggar killed x; prove that
benefits have been derived

Abuse of confidence: aid in facilitation of the commission of the crime

Can treachery absorb it? Yes, but depends on the facts

Paragraph 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a
band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of
an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

12. What is nighttime?

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

13. When is it aggravating? requisite
14. In one case, the public officer took the vault in the public office 10 pm and threw it into
the bay, they took it the next day during lunch. Was night time aggravating? Why not?
15. Suppose that the offender waited for his victim around 4 at the spot where he could kill
him but the victim got out 8 pm and shoot him around 10 pm, was night time
aggravating? Did treachery absorb night time?
16. Suppose flashlight was used to perpetrate the crime, is night time aggravating? During
trial, the offender said that night time should not be aggravating because of the use of
flashlight?
17. What is uninhabited place?
18. Suppose that x killed y at the foot of a hill which covers the definition of an uninhabited
place. Such place was visited by some students days earlier before the killing. Was it
aggravated by uninhabited place?
19. Can you think of another uninhabited place? What about the cemetery?
20. X kills y in the middle of the sea, Boracay, can you consider it uninhabited?
21. What is a band?
22. When you say armed men does this means firearm?
23. Suppose there were two groups, first, 5 armed men, and second 3 armed men. The first
group went out and seek for the second group. Was the crime committed by the first
group aggravated by a band?
24. Suppose x induced y, w,z to kill the victim and they are all armed. X was far from the
others committing the crime though they are all armed, will it be aggravated by a band?
25. Can you appreciate this aggravating circumstance of a band in the crime of robbery?

-night time and uninhabited place, if it all occurs it will be considered as one according to
the fact and circumstances

Night time
-the crime was committed at night, it will not be automatically aggravated
-it must have facilitated the crime, it was especially sought for
-concur with the intent
-x waited at 3 pm but y came 10 pm, it will not be aggravated by such
-crime should be all committed at once during night time
-gravamen of the crime should be completed at night
-the use of flashlight supports the idea that the crime was to be committed at night
-the accused each held flashlight and looked for the victim showing their faces, they did not
use night time to perpetrate the crime
-it would not aggravate the crime if accidentally, two enemies found each other during
night time
-8 pm, still bright, will it be aggravating? No, because it’s not the time but the nocturnity of
the night

Uninhabited Place
-the distance from place to another is 20kms?

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

 -not only the distance that matters but also the probability of seeking help
-cemetery is considered uninhabited place generally, nature of the place that is decisive
-middle of the sea, you cannot help them, uninhabited
-absorbed in treachery

-in one case, x robbed the grocery but first shot the guard from behind. Treachery in the
killing, night time for the robbing--- robbery with homicide now but night time still
aggravates the crime

Band: composed of at least four maybe male or female; all principal by direct participation;
they must be armed
-the law does not require that they have the same participation, one maybe a lookout
-if they are all armed, 5 versus 3, band is not aggravating
-if three armed men: all principal-abuse of superior strength
-if three armed men: not principal- aid of armed men

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

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

- Qualifying circumstance in murder, theft

- X and y are talking, the earth suddenly starts shaking, while shaking, x stabs y, that is
murder but if x already stabbed y then earthquake happened, not aggravating.

Paragraph 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.

-armed men need not be four, it may be less than or more

-not acting as principal, accomplices
-suppose that a wife told 3 persons to kill his husband, parricide for the wife, murder for the
3
-wife tells the 3 men to help her by assisting her. She killed the husband with the 3 watching
her. Wife relied on their presence- parricide aggravated by aid of armed men.
Armed men- murder qualified by abuse of superior strength
-afford impunity: person who will secure others for protection, need not be armed, acts as
accessory to the crime

Paragraph 9. That the accused is a recidivist.

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

26. Recidivist
27. Suppose at the time of his trial he was convicted of homicide and later on convicted for
violation of the dangerous drug act, recidivist?

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

 28. In trial for parricide, he was previously convicted for robbery and now convicted for
parricide, recidivist?
29. 2000 and 2019, convicted of the same crime, a recidivist?
30. Convicted of robbery, then later on convicted of theft, pardoned for robbery, still
recidivism? How about amnesty of the previous offense?
31. Waiting resolution for the crime of abortion, he is being tried for serious physical
injuries, conviction happened before arraignment of the later crime, will recidivism
apply?
32. What is reiteracion?
33. Suppose that he was convicted of homicide, he was paroled. Now, he is on trial for
serious physical injuries and then convicted, will you consider reiteracion?
34. Suppose that x is convicted of homicide and served his sentence in full, now he is
convicted of serious physical injuries, will you appreciate reiteracion? How about
recidivism?
35. If is reiteracion is present, is the court duty bound to appreciate it? How about
recidivism?

-when both reiteracion and recidivism are present, the court will only recognize recidivism.
-even if recidivism is the only present, the court is not mandated to recognize it
-if x committed homicide and was released through parole, and now commits theft, is there
reiteracion? None, because he did not serve his sentence in full

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

36. What is the essence of price, reward or promise?

37. If X induces Y to kill his wife and will give money, Y kills the wife, will you consider price,
reward, promise?
38. How about if y has already plans to kill the wife then suddenly X offered money to Y to
kill wife?
39. How about if the price is not money?
40. If the inducer induces X to kill the victim. Is there aggravating circumstance of price,
reward money against the inducer? Induced?
41. If price reward and promise as well as evident premeditation are both present, what will
stay?

-how is different from principal by inducement in article 17 par 2?-there are other things
considered in article 17 in the current article it is limited to price, reward and money
-price is not only in the form of money
-price must be the motivating factor of the crime, it must be offered

Paragraph 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

42. Requisites

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

 43. Suppose that X has wanted to kill his neighbor, he waited bought firearm, as soon as he
saw a man going down from the tricycle, he shoots him. It turned out to be the brother
of his neighbor. Was there evident premeditation?
44. Wasn’t it error in personae? Is that not in treachery?
45. Suppose that x plans to kill A. He points the gun at A but A duct and B was hit. The crime
of X will be attempted homicide. Was there evident premeditation? A?B?
46. Suppose that X has a grudge on the victim. They met at a party, X stabbed the victim
many times. Was there evident premeditation?
47. Suppose that x was determined to kill the first person who goes inside the church, he
killed A. Was there evident premeditation?
48. Is evident premeditation considered in robbery? In crimes against property?

-there is always evident premeditation in the inducer

-should be evident hahahah
-x has always hated y, they met at a party/mall, x killed y. there was no evident premeditation
-if x and y have plans to kill H, but W went home and was included. There is evident
premeditation with H but none with W.
-inherent in all crimes against property
-X and y has plans to rob the house of victim. They robbed the house, victim screamed so they
killed her. Robbery with homicide is a crime against property so evident premeditation is
inherent. But if they intended that anyone who gets in the way shall be killed, then there is
evident premeditation with respect to homicide
- Suppose that x was determined to kill the first person who goes inside the church, he killed A.
Was there evident premeditation? Yes, even if the person is undetermined
-several attempts to kill a person, then finally killed. There is evident premeditation
-error in personae?- no evident premeditation
-mistake in the blow?- attempted: there is; actual victim :none
-how much time needed in order to appreciate evident premeditation? Follow Three requisites

Paragraph 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use
of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

-when you use any of the following with the intent to kill: qualified to murder
-x poisons his roommate, using poison= murder qualified by poison
-x throws explosives at y to vanish him= murder qualified by use of explosives
-derailment of locomotive-damage to means of communication

No intent to kill but wanted to commit another crime

-explosive to burn house of neighbor= arson (no aggravating)

No intent to kill, plans to burn the roof but accidentally kills another-
-complex crime

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

Used article 12 to conceal a crime: X stabs Y. X burns house of Y to conceal.
=two crimes

artifice involving great waste and ruin- artifice itself is a circumstance

-there should be a lot of victims
-eg, invite a lot of people to watch a concert then locks them inside and burns them = murder
qualified by great waste and ruins

Paragraph 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

Basis:
- The basis has reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime (characterized
by intellectual or mental rather than physical means to which the criminal resorts to carry out
his design)

Craft
- Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused
- Chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal
design, employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime

- Cases involving craft:

-The regular driver feigned illness and fetched another driver to drive for the victim. Upon
saying the he was already well, with the co-accused driver in the vehicle, took over the driver’s
seat and shot the victim on board the vehicle. (People v Zea)
-Four men determined to kill a man in an uninhabited place. They invited the victim to a
journey to a distant mountain on a pretense of finding a mystical molave tree. The victim was
murdered. (US v Gampona)
-Pretending to be bona fide passengers so as not to arouse suspicion on the deceased driver.
(People v Daos)
-Pretending to be constabulary soldiers in able to enter the place of the victims (People v
Saquing)
-The accused dirtied the pants of the offended party and pretended to innocently brush the dirt
off while his confederate grabbed the wallet of the offended party from behind. (People v
Bagtas)
-The defendants asked the offended party to change a P10-bill and thereafter snatched the
latter’s wallet. (People v Mallari)
-Offering unsuspicious chocolate candies to the complainant without knowing that those
contained deleterious drugs. The purpose was to weaken the resistance of the complainant
when the rape is to be commissioned. (People v Guy)
-The accused lured out the victim from his house to be killed (People v Barbosa)
-However, craft is not attendant when the unlawful scheme could have been carried out just
the same without the pretense.

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

- Craft not an aggravating circumstance:
o Where craft partakes the element of an offense, the same may not be appreciated
independently for the purpose of aggravation.
o Craft was not established when coming out from bamboo trees as camouflaging when they
announced their presence at the scene of the crime with shots and gunshots. (People v
Cunanan)

Fraud
- Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a certain manner which
would enable the offender to carry out his design
o When offender induced victims to raise their arms and promised not to harm them if they
would follow. Nevertheless, the offender attacked and killed them when the arms were raised.
(US v Abalinde)

Distinguishing craft from fraud

- Direct inducement by insidious words or machinations – fraud
- Acts in order not to arouse suspicion – craft
-used interchangeably

Disguise
-wearing of a turban, not a disguise
Resorting to any device to conceal identity
o The defendant blackened his face in order not to be recognized at the time of the
commission of the crime (US v Confranda)
o Defendant covered his face with handkerchief before committing the crime (People v Piring)
o The fact that the mask fell down, allowing the offender to be recognized, does not render the
aggravating circumstance of disguise inapplicable (People v Cabato)
- The purpose must be to conceal identity
o When the offender appeared to have cloths wrapped about their heads, the purpose was not
for disguise but was a following of the custom of the country they have been reared (US v
Rodriguez)
o The wearing of the accused in disguising herself by wearing her husband’s clothes on the way
to the place where she killed the deceased was not held as aggravating circumstance because
she did it for fear of being attacked on the way.

Paragraph 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken
the defense.

General rule: if they are several aggressors, there is abuse of superior strength
Exception: Women taking a bath. A man was peeking through a hole. They ran after him and
stabbed him taking turns. There are a lot of aggressors but no superior strength.

If there’s only one malefactor, is there use of superior strength? Gen rule: No

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

Exception:
-Man vs Woman—there’s superior strength
-man vs man- one has a weapon

If there’s only one person, who was charged as an accomplice, can you appreciate abuse of
superior strength? No

Suppose there are 4 armed men, but only 3 are brought to a trial, can you appreciate a band?
No

If there’s a band, superior strength is absorbed in band

If there are three men holding a balisong vs 1 holding a gun= no superior strength

Paragraph 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act.

Ignominy- moral suffering

A circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material
injury caused by the crime.
o A married woman is raped in the presence of her husband/betrothed= qualified rape
o A woman was raped by four men
o The accused used not only the missionary position, but also sexual intercourse of entry from
behind
o Compelling an old woman to confess to theft of clothes, maltreating thereafter and taking off
her drawers (no other purpose but to put the woman to shame)

in rape, ignominy not included as aggravating

raped when she was about to die/ threshold of death: murder qualified by scoffing at the
person

Paragraph 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented
by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.

Cruelty: physical suffering of the victim; crimes against persons

-prolonging the suffering

If a woman was raped, dog style, is there cruelty? It depends. Yes if it is unnecessary to the
commission of the crime

The man was beaten when the man does not give the password of the vault- there’s no cruelty,
it was necessary to compel to disclose password

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

When there is sadism, there is cruelty

Microwave the baby, cruelty? Yes, sadistic nature

Removing head, cruelty? Yes

Paragraph 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

Unlawful entry: the offender enters through a means not intended for entering
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for that purpose
- A means to effect entrance and not for escape (People v Sunga)
- Example: The act of entering through the window, as not the proper means of entry to the
house, constitutes unlawful entry.

Reason - On who acts without respect to walls erected by men to guard their property and
provide for personal safety, shows a greater perversity and audacity. Hence, the law punishes
him with more severity

Application- It should be considered in rape committed through entry in a window or murder

committed with entry of similar manner (the window is not intended for entrance into a
building or dwelling)
- An entry through a broken door will be covered by paragraph 19
- It should be considered in robbery with violence or intimidation of
persons, unlawful entry being not inherent in that kind of particular robbery
- Dwelling and unlawful entry are to be taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling,
there would be two aggravating circumstances (People v Barruga)
- In trespass to dwelling, unlawful entry is not aggravating.

-if you enter through the door, then exits through the window because the owners of the house
came, no unlawful entry
-you must actually enter

Paragraph 19. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door,
or window be broken.

-you break the window to reach something to steal

-you do not actually enter

Paragraph 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age
or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As
amended by RA 5438).

Why 12 yrs old? Exempted

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

Below 12: higher penalty -when victim RA 7610, remove qualified seduction, and acts of
lasciviousness

X rapes a woman, then runs away with a vehicle, is this circumstance appreciated? No, it should
be a means to commit the crime, not to escape the crime

If x use the carretela to bring the body of the drugged victim in order to kill him, is the murder
aggravated? No, carretela is not a motorized vehicle

Offender went to the scene of the crime to take objects amounting to robbery, loaded
everything to the vehicle, use of vehicle is now aggravating, made robbery easier

Vehicle used in estafa, not aggravating

Paragraph 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

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: very essence: offender employs means in such a way to weaken the defense
- 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 part might make.
- The offended party was not given an opportunity to make a defense

X and y having a dinner. Y went to the restroom then x shoots her, is there treachery? Yes there
was sudden attack,

X was found with a bullet shot from the back, is there treachery? It depends
- If shot from the back because he was running away, no treachery

Suppose that the attack was done in stages:

X shot Y but the latter was able to run away from the former, then Y drops. X shoots him again
at the front. Was Y killed with treachery? It depends. With treachery, if it was present at the
inception of the attack.

There was a couple who were both lawyers. The offender came and asked, who is Atty G?, the
lady stood and said yes. She was shot to death. The offender contends that it was not
aggravated by treachery because there was a warning. The court said, calling the name was not
a warning, hence treachery was present.

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry

X, Y and Z were walking when they met the assailant. The assailant shots X and tells Y and Z
them they are next. Will the killing of Z be aggravated by treachery? No because he was already
warned.

X throws a dynamite at Y. treachery or use of explosives? Use of explosives= murder qualified

by the use of explosives aggravated by treachery

Poison a normal person= murder

Poison a very sick person= with treachery
Abuse of superior strength absorbed in treachery

CRIMREV RAW NOTES | KweenQuerry