Art.

14
Aggravating Circumstances
When not taken:
Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime especially
punishable by law, or 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.
Examples:
1. Arson and crime involving destruction that the crime be committed
by means of fire, explosion
2. Robbery crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party, or by unlawful
entry, that roof, windows, door or floor be broken
3. Inherent Circumstances to such a degree it must of necessity accompany
the commission thereof. Just like evident premeditation as inherent in theft, robbery,
estafa, adultery and concubinage. Also, taking advantage of public position is
inherent in crimes where the offenders, who are public officers, committed the
crime in the exercise of their functions, such as in bribery, malversation, etc.
Kinds:
1. Generic applicable to all crimes (except: By means of motor vehicles).
2. Specific Those that apply only to particular crimes.
Example: Ignominy in crimes against chastity/cruelty and treachery in crimes
against persons.
Provisions applicable: Paragraphs 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17, and 21.
3. Qualifying those that change the nature of the crime. For it to be appreciated, it
must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, it will only serve as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
Example: Treachery or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person
to murder.
4. Inherent Those that must of necessity to accompany the commission of the
crime.
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery
and concubinage.
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

It is applicable ONLY when the offender is a public officer. And that public
officer evidently took advantage of his public position.

The public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which
his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose.

Applicable cases:
1. A policeman who maltreated a prisoner who is under his custody in light of the
fact that he had access to the cell where the prisoner is confined (People v. Ural).
2. Police officer who shot the complainant in a treacherous manner.
3. Where the accused used their authority as members of the police and
constabulary to disarm the victim before shooting him.
4. When a councilor collects fines and misappropriates them (U.S. v. Torrida).
5. Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office.
When not applicable
1. When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official
functions and does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, he
should be punished as a private individual without this aggravating circumstance.
2. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying public [or
police] position
3. When it is an integral element of, or inherent in the offense.
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with INSULT to
public authorities
Requisites:
a. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.
b. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the
person against whom the crime is committed.
c. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
d. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the
criminal act.
Public authority is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a
public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws.
Who are public authorities?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Mayor
Councilor
Governor
Others
Barangay Captain and Chairpersons

Note that it is not applicable when the crime is committed in the presence of an
agent only. More so, the crime should not be committed against the public authority
(see the second requisite: That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said
functions is not the person against whom the crime is committed).
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential. Thus, lack of knowledge
predicates lack of intent to insult public authority.
Par. 3: That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c)
sex; or
(2) That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter
has not given provocation.
If all are present = they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission
of the crime (dwelling).
It is thus applicable only to crimes against persons or honor |Rank,
age and sex.
Not applicable to crimes against property.
Thus, the fact that the Presidents wallet was stolen by another does not
serve as an aggravating circumstance for the reason that the fact that it
belongs to the President does not make it more valuable than those wallets
belonging to a private person.
Also, it is improper to appreciate such aggravating circumstance in robbery
with homicide. This is because robbery serves as the main objective of the
crime while homicide is merely incidental to the former.
Proof required: It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance,
other than that the victim is a woman showing insult or disregard of sex
in order that it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Thus,
there must be such deliberate insult to the rank, age or sex of the victim.
A. With insult to rank [of the offended party]
Meaning of rank refers to a [high] social position or standing. To the
designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his
relative position (People v. Rodil).

There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the
offended party.
Examples: Private person v. Person in authority, Pupil v. Teacher, killing of
a judge because of his strictness or because of such resentment harbored
by the accused against the victim by him being the judge, or an attempt
upon the life of a general of the Philippine Army.
Proof of disregard and deliberate intent to insult is required.

B. Of the age of the offended party

When present:
-

When the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the father of the
offender.
Aggressor, 45 years old v. Octogenarian (80-89 y/o).
When the person killed was 80 years old and was very weak.
Deceased, 65 years old; offenders, 32 and 27
Disregard of the respect due to the victim on account of age and
relationship, the accused being the grandson of the deceased.
Also applies where the victim is of tender age while the offender is of old
age. Thus, applied in a case where the murderer is 12 years old while the
victim is 3 years old.
Hence, this circumstance applies to tender age as well as to old
age.
Proof: There must be the deliberate intent to offend or insult for this
aggravating circumstance to be appreciated.

When not present:

-

Disregard of age in robbery with homicide because the latter is a crime

against property. Robbery being the main criminal objective while
homicide being a mere incident of the former.

3. Of the sex of the offended party

-

This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.

o Examples: Compelling a woman to go to his house against her will
(coercion), selecting and killing a female relative of the killers as a
form of retaliation, direct assault upon a lady teacher.

When not present:

-

When the offender merely killed the offended party without intention to
insult the sex of the victim as it was merely brought by the frustration of
the killer when the victim no longer feels any love for him (People v.
Mangsant). It falls more with passion and obfuscation.

Killing a woman is not attended by this circumstance if the offender did

not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her sex. Deliberate
intent to insult her womanhood thus should be manifest.
When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the
offender for instance, visitation rights of the accused denied citing the
fact that the wife obtained a divorce decree.
When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission
of the crime. They are not considered aggravating for they are inherent for
its commission.
Thus, in parricide, rape, abduction or seduction, sex is not aggravating.

Disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery.

Dwelling: is a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort;
thus, a combination house and store or a market stall where the victim slept
is not a dwelling.
What dwelling includes?
1. Dependencies
2. The foot of the staircase (but if the deceased was only about to step on the
first rung of the ladder when he was assaulted, this circumstance, of dwelling,
will not apply).
3. Enclosures
What aggravates:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender
by opening the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with
violence or against the will of the owner.
The offended party must not give provocation, being a condition sine qua non
of this circumstance.
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct capable of inciting or
exciting or irritating a person. Provocation must be:
a. Given by the owner of the dwelling;
b. Sufficient;
c. Immediate to the commission of the crime
When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he
loses his right to the respect and consideration due him in his own
house. And there must be a close relation between provocation and
commission of crime in the dwelling.

The law also requires that the provocation must originate from the same
house where the crime was committed.
Proof required: Prosecution must prove that no provocation was given
by the offended party.
When applies:
1. Even if the offender did not enter the dwelling, this circumstance applies.
It is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault
(People v. Talay).
2. Dwelling is aggravating even if the offender did not enter the upper
part of the house where the victim was, but shot from under the house
(People v. Bautista).
3. Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it is aggravating
provided that the commission of the crime began in the dwelling.
4. Aggravating in abduction or illegal detention.
5. But see U.S. v. Ramos, when the Court held that dwelling was not
aggravating in a case where the deceased was called down from his house
and he was murdered in the vicinity of the house, because it is readily
assumed that the killing did not begin in the dwelling of the offended party.
6. When the deceased had two houses where he used to live, the commission
of the crime in any of them is attended by the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling.
When not applicable:
1. When both offender and the offended party are occupants of the same
house. And this is true even if offender is a servant in the house.
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is
not aggravating because it is inherent. But it is held aggravating in robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons because this class of robbery
can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended partys house.
3. Trespass to dwelling because of its inherent character, the law provides in
defining such crime that it be committed in the dwelling of offended party.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate
provocation.
5. When the dwelling where the crime was committed did not belong to the
offended party.
6. When the dwelling is not exclusively used for rest and comfort as it is
likewise rendered for commercial purposes.

But there are instances where dwelling is aggravating when the crime was
not committed in the dwelling of the victims:
1. Boarding house. It constitutes dwelling, as per Art. 14, par. 3
2. Paternal home
3. Dwelling may mean temporary dwelling (Badilla case).
4. While victims were sleeping as guest. The code speaks of dwelling, not
domicile.
5. When the husband killed his estranged wife in the house solely occupied
by her.
ADULTERY
In adultery, it is aggravating because besides the breach of the fidelity she
owes her husband, she and her paramour violated the respect due to the
conjugal home and they both thereby injured and committed a very grave
offense against the head of the house.
But the rule is different if both the defendants and the offended party were
living in the house because the defendants had a right to be in the house.
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
Par. 4: That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness.
Requisites: T