PARAGRAPH 13

That the act be

premeditation.

committed

with

evident

BASIS
The basis has reference to the ways of
committing
the
crime,
because
evident
premeditation implies a deliberate planning of
the act before executing it.
REQUISITES:
1.
the time when the offender determined
to commit the crime;
2.
an act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to his determination and
3.
a sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will.
*The essence of premeditation is that the execution
of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought
and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
the criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
*Neither is it aggravating where the fracas was the
result of rising tempers, not a deliberate plan, nor
when the attack was made in the heat of anger.
*It is not aggravating in the absence of the evidence
of premeditation. There must be evidence showing
that the accused meditated and reflected on his
intention between the time when the crime was
conceived by him and the time it was actually
perpetrated. The meditation must be evident and not
mere suspected.
*The date, and if possible, the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime is essential
because the lapse of time for the purpose of the 3rd
requisite is computed from that date and time.
SECOND REQUISITE NECESSARY

The premeditation must be based upon external acts

(must be notorious and manifest) and not presumed
from mere lapse of time.
*Mere threats without the second element does not
show evident premeditation.
It is necessary to establish that the accused
mediated on his intention between the time it was
conceived and the time the crime was actually
perpetrated.
A persons proposition was nothing but an
expression of determination to commit the crime
which is entirely different from premeditation.
The rule is that this circumstance is
established if it is proved that there is deliberate
planning to commit the crime, and had persistently
and continuously followed it.
Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof
of evident premeditation
Three hours or less considered sufficient lapse of
time - half an hour, not aggravating.
WHY SUFFICIENT TIME IS REQUIRED
*The offender must have an opportunity to coolly
and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning
and the consequences of what he planned to do, an
interval long enough for his conscience and better
judgment to overcome his evil desire and scheme.
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.
Evident premeditation and price or reward can coexist.
- Premeditation is absorbed by price or reward.
But this rule is applicable only to inductor.
The mere fact another executed the act on the
promise of reward does not necessarily mean that he
had sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of
his act.
When victim is different from that intended,
premeditation is not aggravating
But if it is shown that a person other than
that intended was killed because the conspirators

are determined to kill any one who may help him put
a violent resistance thereof, it is aggravating.
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery,
may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
premeditation included the killing of the victim.
if there is no evidence that the conspirators
previously planned and agreed to kill the victims,
evident premeditation is not aggravating in robbery
with homicide.

But craft is not attendant where the unlawful

scheme could have been carried out just the same
even without the pretense.
FRAUD
Insidious words or machinations used to induce the
victim to act in a manner which would enable the
offender to carry out his design.
Hairline distinction between craft and fraud
There is craft or fraud when by trickery,
accused gained entrance in victims house. By
pretending they had pacific intentions (to buy
chickens) in desiring to enter Argenios home, they
allayed his suspicions. They gained entrance into the
house with his consent through trickery or deceit.
DISTINCTION
Fraud - when there is a direct inducement by
insidious words or machinations
Craft - act of the accused done in order not to
arouse the suspicion of the victim.

PARAGRAPH 14
That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be
employed.
APPLICATION
This circumstance is characterized by the
intellectual or mental rather than physical means to
which the criminal resorts to carry out his design.
CRAFT
Involves the use of trickery and cunning on the part
of the accused. It is not attendant where the accused
was practically in a stupor when the crime was
committed.
the act of the accused in brushing the dirt on
the pants of the offended party, which the accused
himself had dirtied, and while the attention of the
offended party was centered on the act of the
accused, a confederate of the accused grabbed the
wallet of the offended party from behind, constituted
craft.

DISGUISE
Resorting to any device to conceal identity.
but if in spite of the use of handkerchief to
cover their faces, the culprits were recognized by
the victim, the aggravating circumstance of disguise
was not attendant.
the fact that the mask subsequently fell down
thus paving the way for this ones identification does
not
render
the
aggravating
circumstance
inapplicable.
*the purpose of the offender in using any device
must be to conceal his identity.
PARAGRAPH 15
That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or
(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
*
To take advantage of superior strength
means to use purposely excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF NO ADVANTAGE OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH
1.
One who attacks another with passion or
obfuscation does not take advantage of his superior
strength.
2.
When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the
fatal blow was struck at a time when the aggressor
and his victim were engaged against each other as
man to man.
*When the attack was made on the victim
alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength.
*Abuse of superior strength when a man attacks a
woman with a weapon.
No abuse of superior strength in parsec against the
wife - inherent in the crime of parricide.
*There must be evidence that the accused was
physically stronger and that they abused such
superiority.
the fact that there were 2 men who attacked
the victim does not per se establish that there was
this circumstance, it must be proven that the
aggressors have superior strength.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength depends on the age, size and strength of
the parties.
*Number of aggressor, if armed, may point to abuse
of superior strength.
but in a case where three persons armed with
boos attacked another who has a revolver, it was
held that there was no abuse of superior strength, as
their strength was almost balanced, a revolver being
as effective, if not more so, than three bolos.
There is abuse of strength when weapon used is out
of proportion to the defense available to the
offended party.
There is no abuse of superior strength when one
acted as principal and the other two as accomplices
Like nighttime, superior strength is absorbed and
inherent in treachery.

Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in

coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly
excess of that required to commit the offense.
*Abuse of strength is aggravating in illegal
detention, in robbery with rape, in multiple rape, in
robbery with homicide (committed by 3 or more
persons, armed or unarmed).
BY A BAND AND ABUSE
STRENGTH, distinguished

OF

SUPERIOR

the element of by a band is appreciated when

the offense is committed by more than 3 armed
malefactors regardless of the comparative strength
of the victim or victims.
On the other hand, the gravamen of abuse of
superiority is the taking advantage by the culprits of
their collective strength to overpower their
relatively weaker victim or victims. What is taken
into account is not the number of aggressors nor the
fact that they are armed, but their relative physical
might vis-a-vis the offended party.
The aggravating circumstance of the
commission of the crime by a band has been
established, it appearing that there were more than
3 armed malefactors who acted together in the
commission of the offense.
A band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least 4
malefactors who are all armed. Where there were
only 3 perpetrators and two weapons, a kitchen
knife and a dagger, the terrible threesome of the
accused did not constitute a band.
Aggravating circumstance absorbing band
*
Abuse of superiority absorbs cuadrilla. If
treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band
then it is reasonable to hold that band should not be
treated separately and distinct from abuse of
superior strength. The two circumstances have the
same essence which is the utilization of the
combined strength of the assailants to overpower
the victim and consummate the killing.
*
The aggravating circumstance of by a band is
absorbed in treachery.
INTOXICATING
DEFENSE

THE

VICTIM

TO

WEAKEN

This aggravating circumstance exist also when the

offender had the intention to kill the victim, made
the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latters resisting power.
If in his intoxicated state it was impossible for the
victim to put up any sort of resistance at the time he
was attacked, treachery may be considered.
This circumstance is applicable only to crimes
against persons, and sometimes persons and
property, such as robbery with homicide or physical
injuries.
The aggravating circumstance of employing means
to weaken the defense is absorbed by treachery.
PARAGRAPH 16
That the act be committed with treachery.
BASIS
The basis has reference to the means and ways
employed in the commission of the crime.
REQUISITES
1.
that at the time of the attack, the victim
was not in a position to defend himself
2.
that the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
CONDITIONS
1.
the employment of means of execution
that gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate
2.
the means of execution were deliberately
or consciously adopted.
MEANING OF TREACHERY
There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make.
Treachery means the offended party was not
given opportunity to make a defense.

When the victim did not have any opportunity

to defend himself or repel the aggression, as in fact,
the deceased did not sense any danger that he
would be shot by the assailant as there was no
grudge or misunderstanding between them.
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY
1.
Applicable only to crimes against the person
2.
Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment of crime (as the law says, to insure
its execution only)
3.
The mode of attack must be consciously
adopted.
This is applicable only to crimes against persons.
It is not necessary that the mode of attack insures
the consummation of the offense.
The treacherous character of the means
employed in the aggression does not depend upon
the result thereof but upon the means itself, in
connection with the aggressors purpose of
employing it.
Treachery cannot be presumed.
Treachery is not attendant where no witness
who could have seen how the deceased was shot
was presented.
When the witness to the attack did not see
the entire commission of the crime
The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
1.
the accused must make some preparation to
kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it impossible or
hard for the person attacked to defend himself or
retaliate.
2.
the mode of attack must be thought of by the
offender and must not spring from the unexpected
turn of events.
3.
the victim was shot while he was gathering
tuba on top of a coconut tree. he was unarmed and
defenseless. he was not expecting too be assaulted.
he did not give any provocation. the deliberate,
surprise attack shows that the accused and his
companions employed a mode of execution which

insured the killing without any risk to them arising

from any defense which the victim could have made.
When treachery is not present
1.
when the attack was perpetrated in a frontal
encounter
2.
when the assailants did not make any
deliberate, surprise attack on the victim
3.
when the assailants did not consciously adopt
a treacherous mode of attack
4.
the accused and his companions did not
camouflage their hostile intentions.
5.
when the mode of attack negated the
existence of treachery since the element of surprise,
which marks the presence of treachery, was absent.
6.
when there is no evidence that the accused
had, prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to
commit the crime, or there is no proof that the death
of the victim was the result of meditation,
calculation, or refection - treachery cannot be
considered.
7.
if the decision to kill was sudden, there is no
treachery.
THE CHARACTERISTIC AND UNMISTAKABLE
MANIFESTATION
OF
TREACHERY
IS
THE
DELIBERATE,
SUDDEN
AND
UNEXPECTED
ATTACK OF THE VICTIM FROM BEHIND,
WITHOUT ANY WARNING AND WITHOUT GIVING
HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR
REPEL THE INITIAL ASSAULT.

Another reason why treachery cannot be

considered is that the meeting of the victim and the
accused was only accidental.
Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk
1.
victim asleep
2.
victim half-awake or just awakened
3.
victim grappling or being held
4.
attacked from behind
1.
with firearm
2.
with bladed weapon
3.
where the offenders attacked the
victims while the latter were not in
position to make a defense.
*
There was no treachery when the victim was
already defending himself when he was attacked by
the accused.
*
Likewise, when the victim and the accused
grappled with each other.
*
Treachery does not count the element of
surprise alone.
*
It exists when the offender employs means
which tend directly and specially to insure the
execution of the offense, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
When the accused gave the deceased a chance to
prepare, there was no treachery.

BUT MERE SUDDENNESS OF THE ATTACK IS NOT

ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE TREACHERY. SUCH
METHOD OR FORM OF ATTACK MUST BE
DELIBERATELY CHOSEN BY THE ACCUSED.

No treachery where the attack is preceded by a

warning.
calling attention of victim not necessarily a
warning.

*Where the meeting between the accused and the

victim is casual and the attack is impulsively done,
there is no treachery.
The reason for this ruling is that the accused
could not have made a preparation for the attack,
the meeting between him and the deceased being
casual and the means and method and form of
attack could not have been thought of by the
accused, because the attack was impulsively done.

No treachery where shooting is preceded by a

heated argument or discussion
Killing an unarmed victim whose hands are upraised
is committed with treachery
Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with
treachery

Killing a child is characterized by treachery because

the weakness of the victim due to his tender age
results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
INTENT TO KILL IS NOT NECESSARY IN MURDER
WITH TREACHERY
but intent to kill is necessary in murder
committed by means of fire.
Treachery may exist even if the attack is face to
face.
where it appears that the attack was not
preceded by a dispute and the offended party was
unable to prepare himself for his defense.
treachery attends although the attack is
frontal where the victim was completely helpless to
defend himself or repel the initial assault.
flashing the beam of a flashlight in the face of
the victim, though frontal, was sudden and
perpetrated in a manner tending directly to insure
its execution, free from any danger that the victim
might defend himself.
Attack from behind not always alevosia
it must appear that such mode of attack was
consciously adopted and the question of risk to the
offender must be taken into account
IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE TREACHEROUS
ACTS WERE PRESENT AND PRECEDED THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE ATTACK WHICH
CAUSED THE INJURY COMPLAINED OF.
*
If there was a break in the continuity of the
aggression and at the time the fatal wound was
inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into
account.
*
Treachery need not exist in the beginning of
the assault if the victim was first seized and bound
and then killed.
SUMMARY OF THE RULES
1.
when the aggression is continuous, treachery
must be present at the beginning of the assault.

2.
when the assault was not continuous, in that
there was an interruption, it is sufficient that
treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow
was given.
*
In treachery, it makes no difference whether
or not the victim was the same person whom the
accused intended to kill.
*
the reason for this rule is that when there is
treachery, it is impossible for either the intended
victim or the actual victim to defend himself against
the aggression.
TREACHERY, ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH,
AND MEANS AND WAYS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN
DEFENSE, distinguished
in treachery, means, methods or forms of
attack are employed by the offender to make it
impossible or hard for the offended party to put up
any sort of resistance.
in abuse of superior strength, the offender
does not employ means, methods or forms of attack;
he only takes advantage of his superior strength.
in means employed to weaken the defense,
the offender, like in treachery, employs means but
the means employed only materially weakens the
resisting power of the offended party.
When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered
against all offenders.
treachery should be considered against all
persons participating or cooperating in the
perpetration of the crime, except when there is no
conspiracy among them.
TREACHERY, EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ARE ABSORBED
IN TREASON BY KILLINGS.
TREACHERY ABSORBS NIGHTTIME, ABUSE
OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, AID OF ARMED MEN,
BY A BAND AND MEANS TO WEAKEN THE
DEFENSE.
treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of
superiority, band and aid of armed men. while there

may be instances where any of the other

circumstances may be treated independently of
treachery, it is not so when they form part of the
treacherous mode of attack
CRAFT IS INCLUDED IN AND ABSORBED IN
TREACHERY BECAUSE IT WAS USED TO INSURE
THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME WITHOUT ANY
RISK TO THE CULPRITS.
AGE AND SEX ARE INCLUDED IN TREACHERY
disregard of age and sex may be deemed
included in treachery.
DWELLING IS NOT INCLUDED IN TREACHERY
TREACHERY
POISONING.

IS

INHERENT

IN

MURDER

BY

TREACHERY CANNOT CO-EXIST WITH PASSION

OR OBFUSCATION
the reason for this ruling is that a person who
loses his reason and self-control could not
deliberately employ a particular means, method or
form of attack in the execution of the crime
PARAGRAPH 17
That the means employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
BASIS
The basis has reference to the means employed.
Ignominy
A circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which
adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
caused by the crime.
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious
physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and
murder.
Means employed
when the accused raped a woman after
winding cogon grass against his genital organ, he

thereby augmented the wrong done by increasing its

pain and adding ignominy thereto.
That circumstances be brought about
where one rapes a married woman in the
presence of her husband
where one rapes a woman in the presence of
her betrothed
where a woman was successively raped by
four men
where the accused not only used the
missionary position but also the dog style etc.
Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
more humiliating or put the offended party to
shame
*It is incorrect to appreciate adding ignominy to the
offense where the victim was already dead when his
body was dismembered.
*
It is required that the offense be committed
in a manner that tends to make its effects more
humiliating to the victim, that is, add to his moral
suffering.
No ignominy when the husband was killed in the
presence of wife.
Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide
rape committed on the occasion of robbery
with homicide increases the moral evil of the crime
it is incorrect to say that there is no law
which
considers
rape
as
an
aggravating
circumstance simply because it is not stated in Art
14 of the RPC.
PARAGRAPH 18
That the crime be committed after an unlawful
entry
BASIS
The basis has reference to the means and ways
employed to commit the crime.

Unlawful entry
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended
for the purpose.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS NOT AGGRAVATING IN

TRESPASS TO DWELLING

To effect entrance, not for escape

Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance
and not for escape.

PARAGRAPH 19
That as a means to the commission of a crime,
a wall, roof, floor, door, or window, be broken.

REASON
One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by
men to guard their property and provide for their
personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a
greater audacity; hence the law punishes him with
more severity.

BASIS
The basis has reference to means and ways
employed to commit a crime.

DWELLING AND UNLAWFUL ENTRY TAKEN

SEPARATELY IN MURDERS COMMITTED IN A
DWELLING.
When the accused gained access to the
dwelling by climbing through the window and once
inside, murdered certain persons in the dwelling
there were two aggravating circumstances which
attended the commission of the crimes - dwelling
and unlawful entry.

*The Supreme Court called this as aggravating

circumstance of forcible entry
*Note that because of the phrase as a means to the
commission of the crime, it is not necessary that the
offender should have entered the building. What
aggravates the liability of the offender is the
breaking of a part of the building as a means to the
commission of the crime.
*In order to be appreciated, something must be
broken. It is not appreciated in where the accused
did not break the door of the victims as a means to
commit robbery with homicide .