Você está na página 1de 8

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Those circumstances which raise the penalty for


a crime in its maximum period provided by law
applicable to that crime or change the nature of
the crime.
Note: The list in this Article is EXCLUSIVE
there
are
no
analogous
aggravating
circumstances.
The aggravating circumstances must be
established with moral certainty, with the same
degree of proof required to establish the crime
itself
According to the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, BOTH generic and qualifying
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in
the Information in order to be considered by the
Court in imposing the sentence. (Rule 110, Sec.
9)
Basis
1. the motivating power behind the act
2. the place where the act was committed
3. the means and ways used
4. the time
5. the personal circumstance of the offender and/or of
the victim
Kinds
1. GENERIC Those that can generally apply to
all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,
14, 18, 19, and 20 except by means of motor
vehicles. A generic aggravating circumstance
may be offset by a generic mitigating
circumstance.
2. SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular
crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and
21.
3. QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of
the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying AC
which qualify the killing of person to murder. If
two or more possible qualifying circumstances
were alleged and proven, only one would qualify
the offense and the others would be generic
aggravating. (ASKED TWICE BAR EXAMS)
4. INHERENT Those that must accompany the
commission of the crime and is therefore not
considered in increasing the penalty to be
imposed such as evident premeditation in theft,
robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
5. SPECIAL Those which arise under special
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense
and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances
such as:
a. quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
b. complex crimes (Art. 48)
c. error in personae (Art. 49)
d. taking advantage of public position and
membership in an organized/syndicated
crime group (Art. 62)
Generic aggravating
circumstances

Qualifying
aggravating

The effect of a
generic AC, not offset
by any mitigating
circumstance, is to
increase the penalty
which should be
imposed upon the
accused to the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.

It is not an ingredient
of the crime. It only
affects the penalty to
be imposed but the
crime remains the
same

The circumstance
can be offset by an
ordinary mitigating
circumstance

circumstances
The effect of a
qualifying AC is not
only to give the crime
its proper and
exclusive name but
also to place the
author thereof in such
a situation as to
deserve no other
penalty than that
specially prescribed
by law for said crime.
The circumstance
affects the nature of
the crime itself such
that the offender shall
be liable
for a more serious
crime. The
circumstance is
actually an ingredient
of the crime
Being an ingredient
of the crime, it cannot
be offset by any
mitigating
circumstance

Aggravating circumstances which do not have the


effect of increasing the penalty:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime especially punishable by law.
2. Aggravating circumstances which are included
by the law in defining a crime and prescribing
the penalty therefore shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty. (Art. 62, par. 1).
3. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime
to such a degree that it must of necessity
accompany the commission thereof. (Art. 62,
par. 2).
Aggravating circumstances which are personal to
the offenders
1. Aggravating circumstances which arise:
2. from moral attributes of the offender;
3. from his private relations with the offended party;
or
4. from any personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate the liability of the principals,
accomplices, accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. (Art. 62, par. 3).
Aggravating circumstances which depend for their
application upon the knowledge of offenders
The circumstances which consist
1. in the material execution of the act, or

2. in the means employed to accomplish it, shall


serve to aggravate the liability of those persons
only who had knowledge of them at the time of
the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. (Art. 62, par. 4).
TWENTY-ONE aggravating circumstances under
Art. 14:
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office
2. In Contempt Of Or With Insult To Public
Authorities
3. With Insult Or Lack Of Regard Due To Offended
Party By Reason Of Rank, Age Or Sex
4. Abuse
Of
Confidence And
Obvious
Ungratefulness
5. Crime In Palace Or In Presence Of The Chief
Executive
6. Nighttime; Uninhabited Place; With A Band
7. On Occasion Of A Calamity
8. Aid Of Armed Men Or Means To Ensure
Impunity
9. Recidivism
10. Reiteration or Habituality
11. Price, Reward Or Promise
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison
13. Evident Premeditation
14. Craft, Fraud Or Disguise
15. Superior Strength Or Means To Weaken
Defense
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful Entry
19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof
20. With Aid Of Persons Under 15 By Motor
Vehicle
21. Cruelty
Taking Advantage of Public Office
Par. 1 that advantage be taken by the offender of his
public position
This is applicable only if the offender is a public
officer.
The public officer must:
1. Use
the
influence,
prestige
or
ascendancy which his office gives him
2. As means by which he realizes his
purpose.
The essence of the matter is presented in the
inquiry, did the accused abuse his office in
order to commit the crime?(U.S. v. Rodriguez)
When a public officer
1. commits a common crime independent
of his official functions and
2. does acts that are not connected with
the duties of his office,
3. he should be punished as a private
individual without this aggravating
circumstance.
Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is
proven that he has failed in his duties as such
public officer, this circumstance would warrant

the aggravation of his penalty. Thus, the fact that


the vice-mayor of a town joined a band of
brigands made his liability greater.
The circumstance 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 (Art. 217) or falsification of public
documents under Art. 171.
Taking advantage of public position is also
inherent in the following cases:
1. Accessories under Art. 19, par. 3
(harboring, concealing or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime);
and
2. Title VII of Book Two of the RPC
(Crimes committed by public officers)

In Contempt of or With Insult to Public Authorities


Par. 2 that the crime be committed in
contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in
the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the
exercise of his functions is not the
person against whom the crime is
committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public
authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the
offender from committing the criminal
act.
Public Authority / Person in Authority is a
person directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a
public officer who has the power to govern and
execute the laws. The councilor, mayor,
governor, barangay captain, barangay chairman
etc. are persons in authority. (Art. 152, as
amended by P.D. 1232)
o A school teacher, town municipal health
officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police,
etc. are now considered a person in
authority.
Par. 2 is not applicable if committed in the
presence of an agent only such as a police
officer.
Agent - A subordinate public officer charged with
the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio policemen, councilmen, and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority. (Art. 152, as amended by BP 873).
Knowledge that a public authority is present
is essential. Lack of such knowledge indicates
lack of intention to insult public authority.
If crime is committed against the public authority
while in the performance of his duty, the offender
commits direct assault without this aggravating
circumstance.

With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to Offended Party


by Reason of Rank, Age or Sex
Par. 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.
o Four circumstances are enumerated in
this paragraph, which can be considered
singly or together.
o If all the 4 circumstances are present,
they have the weight of one aggravating
circumstance only.
o There must be evidence that in the
commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult
the sex or age of the offended party.
o Disregard of rank, age or sex may be
taken into account only in crimes
against persons or honor
RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
o Designation or title used to fix the
relative position of the offended party in
reference to others. There must be a
difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party.
AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
o May refer to old age or tender age of the
victim.
SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
o This refers to the female sex, not to the
male sex.
o The aggravating circumstance is NOT to
be considered in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with
passion
and
obfuscation.
(People v. Ibanez)
2. When there exists a relationship
between the offended party and
the
offender.
(People
v.
Valencia)
3. When the condition of being a
woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime. Thus,
in rape, abduction, or seduction,
sex is not aggravating. (People
v. Lopez)
DWELLING (Morada)
o Building or structure, exclusively used
for rest and comfort. Thus, in the case of
People v. Magnaye, a combination of
a house and a store, or a market stall
where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
o This is considered an AC because in
certain cases, there is an abuse of
confidence which the offended party
reposed in the offender by opening the
door to him.

o
o

o
o

Dwelling need not be owned by the


offended party.
It is enough that he used the place for
his peace of mind, rest, comfort and
privacy.
Dwelling should not be understood in
the concept of a domicile: A person has
more than one dwelling. So, if a man
has so many wives and he gave them
places of their own, each one is his own
dwelling. If he is killed there, dwelling
will be aggravating, provided that he
also stays there once in a while.
If a crime of adultery was committed.
Dwelling was considered aggravating on
the part of the paramour. However, if the
paramour was also residing in the same
dwelling, it will not be aggravating.
The offended party must not give
provocation.
When a crime is committed in the
dwelling of the offended party and the
latter has not given provocation,
dwelling may be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance. Provocation
in the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling must be:
1. given by the offended party
2. sufficient, and
3. immediate to the commission of
the crime.
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 may have devised means
to perpetrate the assault.
Dwelling includes dependencies, the
foot of the staircase and the enclosure
under the house.

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:


1. When both offender and offended party are
occupants of the same house even if offender is
a servant of the house.
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of
force things, dwelling is not aggravating because
it is inherent.
a. But dwelling is aggravating in robbery
with violence or intimidation of persons
because this class or robbery can be
committed without the necessity of
trespassing the sanctity of the offended
partys house.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent
or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient
and immediate provocation. (Art. 14 par. 3)

Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness


Par. 4 That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness
Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances.
If present in the same case, they must be
independently appreciated.
a. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE (Abuso de
confianza)
1. That the offended party had
trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such
trust by committing a crime
against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission of the
crime.
The confidence between the offender and the
offended party must be immediate and personal.
It is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified
theft (Art. 310), estafa by conversion or
misappropriation (Art. 315) and qualified
seduction. (Art. 337).
b. OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
1.That the offended party had
trusted the offender;
2.That the offender abused such
trust by committing a crime
against the offended party;
3.That the act be committed with
obvious ungratefulness.
The ungratefulness must be obvious: (1)
manifest and (2) clear.
In a case where the offender is a servant, the
offended party is one of the members of the
family. The servant poisoned the child. It was
held that abuse of confidence is aggravating
Crime in Palace or in Presence of the Chief
Executive
Par. 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 religious worship
If it is the Malacaang palace or a church it is
aggravating regardless of whether State or
official or religious functions are being held.
o The President need not be in the
palace.
o His presence alone in any place where
the crime is committed is enough to
constitute the AC.
o It also applies even if he is not engaged
in the discharge of his duties in the
place where the crime was committed.
Note: Offender must have the intention to
commit a crime when he entered the place.
o Cemeteries are not places dedicated for
religious worship
Par. 2 Contempt or
insult to public

Par. 5 Where public


authorities are

authorities

engaged in the
discharge of their
duties.
Public authorities are engaged in the
performance of their duties.
Public duty is
Public duty is
performed in their
performed outside of
office
their office
The offended party
The public authority
may
should not be the
or may not be the
offended party
public authority
Nighttime
(Nocturnidad);
Uninhabited
Place
(Despoblado); With a Band (Cuadrilla)
Par. 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.

These 3 circumstances may be considered


separately:
1. when their elements are distinctly
perceived and
2. can subsist independently,
3. revealing a greater degree of perversity.
Requisites:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the
crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the
offender to insure the commission of the
crime or for the purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage
thereof for the purpose of impunity.

a. NIGHTTIME (Nocturnidad)
The commission of the crime must begin and be
accomplished in the nighttime (after sunset and
before sunrise).
o Nighttime by and of itself is not an
aggravating circumstance.
o The offense must be actually committed
in the darkness of the night.
o When the place is illuminated by light,
nighttime is not aggravating.
o Nighttime need not be specifically
sought for when:
the offender purposely took
advantage of nighttime; or
it facilitated the commission of
the offense.
b. UNINHABITED PLACE (Desplobado)
o It is determined not by the distance of the
nearest house to 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.
o Solitude must be sought to better attain
the criminal purpose.
o The offenders must choose the place as
an aid either (1) to an easy and
uninterrupted accomplishment of their
criminal designs, or (2) to insure
concealment of the offense, that he
might thereby be better secured against
detection and punishment
c. BAND (Cuadrilla)
There should
1. Be at least be four persons
2. At least 4 of them should be armed
3. and are principals by direct participation.
This aggravating circumstance
is absorbed in the circumstance
of abuse of superior strength.
This is inherent in brigandage.
The armed men must have
acted
together
in
the
commission of the crime.
On Occasion of a Calamity
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.

The rationale for this AC is the debased form of


criminality of one who, in the midst of a great
calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted,
adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune and despoiling them.
o The offender must take advantage of the
calamity or misfortune.
o OR
OTHER
CALAMITY
OR
MISFORTUNE
refers
to
other
conditions of distress similar to
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake
or epidemic.

Aid of Armed Men or Means to Ensure Impunity


(Auxilio de Gente Armada)
Par. 7 That the crime be committed on the occasion of
a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune

Requisites:
1. That the armed men or persons took
indirectly part in the commission of the
crime,
2. the accused availed himself of their aid
or relied upon them when the crime was
committed.
Not applicable
o When both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed.
o When the accused as well as those who
cooperated with him in the commission

of the crime acted under the same plan


and for the same purpose.
Casual presence, or when the offender
did not avail himself of their aid nor
knowingly count upon their assistance in
the commission of the crime.

Par. 6 By a band
Requires more than
3 armed malefactors
Requires that more
than three armed
malefactors shall
have
acted together in the
commission of an
offense
Band members are
all principals

Par. 8 With aid of


armed men
At least two armed
men
This circumstance is
present even if one
of the offenders
merely
relied on their aid, for
actual aid is not
necessary
Armed men are
mere accomplices

Recidivism (Reincidencia)
Par. 8 That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity

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 the second
offenses are embraced in the same title
of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new
offense.
Different forms of repetition or habituality of
offender:
a. Recidivism under Article 14 (9)The
offender at the time of his trial for one
crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another
embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
b. Repetition or reiteracion under Article
14 (9)The offender has been
previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
c. Habitual delinquency under Article 62
(5)The offender within a period of 10
years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or
less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of any of the said crimes a third
time or another.
d. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160
Any person who shall ` a felony after
having been convicted by final judgment
before beginning to serve such

sentence or while serving such


sentence shall be punished by the
maximum period prescribed by law for
the new felony
In recidivism, the crimes committed should be
felonies. There is no recidivism if the crime
committed is a violation of a special law.
What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the
time of the commission of the offense
o What is required is previous conviction
at the time of the trial.
o The best evidence of a prior conviction
is a certified copy of the original
judgment of conviction, and such
evidence is always admissible and
conclusive unless the accused himself
denies his identity with the person
convicted at the former trial.
o At the time of the trial means from the
arraignment until after sentence is
announced by the judge in open court.
Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter how
long ago the offender was convicted, if he is
subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in
the same title of the Revised Penal Code, it is
taken into account as aggravating in imposing
the penalty.
Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is
absolute because it only excuses the service of
the penalty, not the conviction. However, if a
person was granted an amnesty, and thereafter
he is convicted of another crime of the same
class as the former crimes, his former conviction
would not be aggravating. According to Art. 89,
amnesty extinguishes not only the penalty but
also its effects. If the offender has
o already served his sentence and
o he was extended an absolute pardon,
the pardon shall erase the
conviction including recidivism
because there is no more
penalty
so the pardon shall be
understood as referring to the
conviction or the effects of the
crime.

Reiteracion/Habituality
Par. 10 That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty

Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an
offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law
attaches:
a. an equal or
b. greater penalty, or

c.

for 2 or more crimes to which it


attaches lighter penalty than
that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
In Reiteracion or Habituality, it is essential that
the offender be previously punished; that is, he
has served sentence. Par. 10 speaks of
o penalty attached to the offense,
o not the penalty actually imposed

Par. 9 Recidivism
It is enough that a
final judgment has
been rendered in the
first offense.
Requires that the
offenses be included
in the same title of
the Code
Always to be taken
into consideration in
fixing the penalty to
be imposed upon the
accused
Rationale is the
proven tendency to
commit a similar
offense
Art. 14, Par. 9
Recidivism
Two convictions are
enough
The crimes are not
specified; it is
enough that they
may be embraced
under the same title
of the Revised Penal
Code

There is no time limit


between the first
conviction and the
subsequent
conviction.
Recidivism is
imprescriptible.

Par. 10 Reiteracion
It is necessary that
the offender shall
have served out his
sentence for the first
offense.
The previous and
subsequent offenses
must not be
embraced in the
same title of the
Code
Not always an
aggravating
circumstance
Rationale is the
proven resistance to
rehabilitation
Art. 62 par. 5
Habitual
Delinquency
At least three
convictions are
required
The crimes are
limited and specified
to:
a. serious physical
injuries,
b. Less serious
physical injuries,
c. robbery,
d. theft,
e. estafa or swindling
and
f. falsification
There is a time limit
of not more than 10
years between every
conviction computed
from the first
conviction or release
from punishment
thereof to conviction
computed from the
second conviction or
release therefrom to

the third conviction


and so on

It is a generic
aggravating
circumstance which
can be offset by an
ordinary mitigating
circumstance. If not
offset, it would only
increase the penalty
prescribed by law for
the crime committed
to its maximum
period

Habitual delinquency
is a special
aggravating
circumstance, hence
it cannot be offset by
any mitigating
circumstance. Aside
from the penalty
prescribed by law for
the crime committed,
an additional penalty
shall be imposed
depending upon
whether it is already
the third conviction,
the fourth, the fifth
and so on

Prize, Reward or Promise


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

o
o
o

When this AC is present, there must be 2 or


more principals:
1. the one who gives or offers the price or
promise; and
2. the one who accepts it.
Both of whom are principals to the former,
because he directly induces the latter to commit
the crime, and the latter because he commits it.
When this AC is present, it affects not only the
person who received the price or reward, but
also the person who gave it.
The evidence must show that one of the
accused used money or valuable consideration
for the purpose of inducing another to perform
the deed.
If without previous promise it was given
voluntarily after a crime was committed as an
expression of his appreciation for the sympathy
and aid shown by the other accused, it should
not be taken into consideration for the purpose
of increasing the penalty.
The price, reward or promise:
o Need not consist of or refer to material
things; or
o That the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer
made by the principal by
inducement was accepted by
the
principal
by
direct
participation
before
the
commission of the offense.

lInundation, Fire, Poison

Par. 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.
o Unless used by the offender as a means to
accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the
circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot be
considered to increase the penalty or to change
the nature of the offense.
o When another AC already qualifies the crime,
any of these ACs shall be considered as generic
aggravating circumstance only.
o Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson.
o Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire,
as when you kill someone, you burn down his
house while the latter is inside, this is murder.
If the intent is to destroy property - the crime is arson
even if someone dies as a consequence.
If the intent is to kill - there is murder even if the house
is burned in the process.
When used as means to kill another person, the
crime is murder
1. By means of fire
o In order to constitute murder, there should
be an actual design to kill and that the use of
fire should be purposely adopted as a
means to that end. (U.S. v Burns)
o 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.
2. By means of explosion
o The offense is a crime of destruction. (Art.
324) If one of the people there died, but
there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, it will be a crime involving
destruction also, but the penalty will be
death. But if there is intent to kill and
explosion is used by the offender to
accomplish his criminal purpose, it is murder
if the victim dies as direct consequence
thereof.
3. By means of derailment of locomotive
o Under Art. 330, which defines and penalizes
the crime of damage to means of

communication, derailment of cars, collision


or accident must result from damage to a
railway, telegraph or telephone lines. But

this is without prejudice to the criminal


liability for other consequences of criminal
act

Você também pode gostar