AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

- Modifying circumstances, the presence of which in the

commission of a crime increases the penalty for it.

KINDS:

A. ORDINARY AGGRAVATING – May apply to crimes in general or

particular crimes. It can be offset by mitigating circumstance.
Most circumstances under Article 14 are generally ordinary.

1. Generic Aggravating Circumstance – Those that are

applicable to crimes in general. Ex: Taking advantage of
public position, nighttime.

2. Specific Aggravating Circumstance – Applicable to

particular crimes only. Ex: Treachery and cruelty applicable
to crimes against persons only.

B. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE – Those that

increase the penalty by period or by component if found to be
present in the commission of a crime regardless of the presence
of mitigating circumstances. Ex under Art. 14: Taking advantage
of public position.

C. QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE – Those that

change the name and nature of the offense and cause the
imposition of a penalty graver than that for the crime being
qualified. Ex: Treachery and evident premeditation will qualify
homicide to murder.

- In relation to the crime being qualified, the circumstance is

qualifying, but in relation to the qualified crime the qualifying
circumstance is an element thereof. Ex: Treachery

- If there is aggravating circumstance under Article 14 and at

the same time qualifying circumstance, the same will be
considered qualifying and will not be considered as ordinary
anymore. Ex: Treachery

- If there are two or more ordinary aggravating and at the same

time qualifying, one will be considered qualifying while others
will be considered ordinary only.
 - Aggravating circumstances whether qualifying or ordinary
must be alleged in the information and duly proven during
trial to be appreciated as such

D. INHERENT CIRCUMSTANCE – Those which in themselves

constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefore, or which are inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must necessarily accompany the commission
thereof, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.

1. Constitutive of a crime – Ex: Fire in arson

2. Element of a crime – Ex: Treachery in murder

3. Inherent in crime – The crime involved absorb the

aggravating circumstance attending their commission. Ex:
Evident premeditation in robbery; ignominy in rape.

E. EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE – Those which increase

the penalty by degree or imposed additional penalty if found to
be present in the commission of the offense.

- Not subject to offset rule.

- Ex:
a. Recidivism under Art. 202 on prostitution or vagrancy
increase the penalty by degrees.
b. Theft of mail matter or large cattle under Art. 302
c. Theft committed by a domestic servant under Art. 310,
abuse of confidence is extra ordinary circumstance that will
qualify the crime to qualified theft.
d. Imposition of additional in habitual delinquency under Art
62

F. SPECIAL LAW –

a. R.A. 10591
b. R.A. 9262 – pregnancy or committed in the presence of her
child
c. R.A. 9165 – use of dangerous drugs is qualifying
aggravating circumstance but silent as to penalty.
 1. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION

- Generic special aggravating circumstance under R.A. 7659

amending Art. 62 of the RPC. Not subject to offset rule. The
penalty to be imposed shall be in the maximum regardless of
mitigating circumstances.

Elements:

1. The offender is a public officer.

- See Art. 203, on definition of Public Officer.

2. Offender took advantage of his position to facilitate

the commission of the crime.

- Requires that accused, as a public officer, used the influence

or reputation of his position for the purpose of committing the
crime, or the accused could not have perpetrated the crime
without occupying his position. The essence of the matter is
presented in the inquiry: “Did the accused abuse his office in
order to commit the crime? (US vs. Rodriguez G.R. No. 6344,
March 21, 1911)
-
- Applied in People vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801, March 27, 1974,
accused policeman maltreated a prisoner and burned the
latter in a cell.

- Applied in US vs. Torrida, G.R. No. 7452, September 18, 1912.

Reporting of dead animals to a municipal councilman and
paying 5 pesos fine for each dead animal when the fine was
not required by the municipality.

- Not applied in US vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-3873, October 18,

1907. Accused on vacation received amount from different
persons to buy cedula. Accused misappropriated some of the
money.

- Not appreciated in Bangcado and Banisa G.R. No. 132330

Nov. 28, 2000, where witnesses believed the assailants, who
were not in police uniform, to be civilians.

- Applied in Pablo vs. People, G.R. No. 152481, April 15, 2005
victims were boarded in the patrol car. Believing they were
lawfully arrested for an offense, they gave the police officers
the money the latter are demanding.
Use of firearm and wearing uniform

Applied in – US vs. Yumul, G.R. No. 11196, March 8, 1916; People

vs. Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988.

Not applied – People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L18793, Oct. 11, 1968;
People vs. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004