Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


People v. Tumaob, G.R. No. 125690, June 22, 1998

Revised Penal Code Article 248 Murder

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

Under substantive law, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons
(e.g, homicide or murder), 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 (Article 14(b), Revised Penal Code). Two conditions must concur for
treachery to be present, namely, (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked
no oppurtunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the said means or method of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

People v. Valerio, G.R. No. L-4116, February 25, 1982

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or

assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving great waste and ruin.

The killing of a child is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown. The qualifying
circumstances of treachery or "alevosia" exists in the commission of the crime of murder when an adult
person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,

eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

People v. Jamoralin, G.R. No. L-2257, February 19, 1951

Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another,
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.

That a person was killed.

That the accused killed him.
That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances in Art. 248
The killing is not parricide or infanticide.

People v. Cagoco, G.R. No. L-38511, October 6, 1933

If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner, he would nevertheless have been
guilty of homicide, although he did not intend to kill the deceased; and since the defendant did commit
the crime with treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance
of treachery.
US v. Burns, G.R. No. 16648, March 5, 1921
xxx it is intended that there should be an actual design to kill and that the use of fire should be purposely
adopted as a means to that end. There can be no murder in the absence of design to take life.
People v. Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951
Attacking three weak and defenseless girls, two of them only five and three years old, suddenly and with
a deadly weapon like a bolo, against which unexpected assault they could not defend themselves, clearly
constitutes treachery which qualifies the killing and raises it to the category of murder.

That there was abuse of superior strength would suffice to qualify the crime to murder, but this
circumstance must be considered as absorbed in treachery.
(People v. Leano, C.A., 36 OG 1120; People v. Causi, G.R. No. L-16498, June 29, 1963)
The circumstance is present and it qualifies the killing of a person to murder, when the prosecution
proves (1) the time when the offender determined to kill his victim; (2) an act of the offender manifestly
indicating that he clung to his determination to kill his victim; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
the determination and the execution of the killing.
US v. Parro, G.R. No. 12607, September 27, 1917
xxx the defendant procured an ignorant man by the name of Gabino Calindatas to kill the brother and
grandniece of the defendant for a reward of P60 and a promise to maintain the family of Calindatas could
not be prosecuted after the expiration of three years. Calindatas, following the instructions of the
defendant, on the night of April 16, 1913, waylaid the brother Silverio Parro and the small girl Paciencia
Sendencia in an uninhabited place on the seashore and killed them with a dagger. Calindatas then
reported to the defendant that his orders had been executed, whereupon the defendant sent men to bury
the bodies in the sea.
These facts constitute murder by inducement for a price and make the defendant guilty as principal in the
commission of the crime.


People v. Dagman, et al., G.R. No. L-23133, August 20, 1925

Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. The courts, in view of the facts of the
case, may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined
and penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed
under the provision of Article 50.

In frustrated murder the accused performs all of the acts which he believes necessary to consummate the
crime. Death, fails to follow for causes entirely apart from his will. xxx In the case at bar it appears
clearly that the defendant believed that he had performed all of the acts necessary to consummate the
crime of murder, and, therefore, of his own will, desisted from striking further blows. He believed that he
had killed Keng Kin. Death did not result for reasons entirely apart from the will of the accused. This
surely stamps the crime as frustrated murder.

People v. Honrada, G.R. No. 43495, September 15, 1935

The attack was therefore treacherous, and the number and seriousness of the wounds, especially the one
in the abdomen that penetrated the liver, show that it was the intention of the defendant to kill the
offended party. It was only prompt and skillful medical treatment which the offended party received that
saved his life. The offense committed by the defendant was therefore frustrated murder.

US v. Maghirang, et al., G.R. No. L-9991, December 19, 1914

While the information charged attempted murder, we found the accused guilty of frustrated murder upon
the ground that he performed all of the acts which should produce death, which acts, nevertheless, did not
produce death by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.