Article 14-Aggravating Circumstances PDF

Preview

Summary

This is a brief summary regarding Article 14 of the RPC - Aggravating Circumstances...

Description

Article 14 – Aggravating Circumstances



What are Aggravating Circumstances?  Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum period of the penalty provided by law for the offense. In relation to Article 76 of the RPC, the legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum. Refer to Article 64, Par. 1 of the RPC for the Rules for the Application of Penalties which contain Three Periods. Article 64 states: “When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the court shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.



What is the BASIS of Aggravating Circumstance?  Aggravating Circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender because of: 1.) the motivating power itself (Art. 14, par. 11 of the RPC); 2.) the place of commission (Art. 14, par. 2); 3.) the means and ways employed (Art. 14, par. 12); 4.) the time of commission (Art. 14, par. 7); 5.) the personal circumstance of the offender (Art. 14, par. 9) and of the offended party (Art. 14, par. 3).



What are the Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances?  There are 4-Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances, namely: 1.) Generic Aggravating Circumstance;  Generic Aggravating Circumstances generally apply to all crimes, such as in Article 14, pars. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20 of the RPC.

2.) Specific Aggravating Circumstance;  Specific Aggravating Circumstances apply only to particular crimes, such as in Article 14, pars. 15, 16, 17, and 21 of the RPC. o

Pars. 15,16, & 21 – are present only in crimes against person.

o

Par. 7 – applies to crimes against chastity and against person.

3.) Qualifying Circumstance; and  Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances are those that change the nature of the crime, such as those under Article 248 of the RPC (Crime of Murder). All the circumstances under Article 248 of the RPC are mentioned in Article 14 of the same Code, except for the circumstance of killing another with cruelty by outraging or scoffing at the victim’s person or corpse. In other words, if any person, who shall kill with any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248 of the RPC, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. NOTE: A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such. “Abuse of Confidence”, as qualifying circumstance which qualifies Theft to Qualified Theft.

4.) Inherent Aggravating Circumstance.  Inherent Aggravating Circumstances are those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever. It will not increase the penalty prescribed by law for the crime charged.  Refer to Article 62, pars. 1 and 2 of the RPC.

 Examples of Inherent Aggravating Circumstances are: a.) Evident Premeditation under Art. 14, par. 13 of the RPC for the crimes of Robbery, Theft, Estafa, Adultery and Concubinage); b.) Crime committed by means of fire under Art. 14, par. 12 of the RPC for the crime of Arson; c.) Crime committed by means of explosion under Art. 14, par. 12 of the RPC for crimes involving destruction in relation to Art. 324 of the same Code. d.) Abuse of public position in the crime of Malversation (Art. 62, par. 2).

5.) Special Aggravating Circumstance – these are aggravating circumstances which arise under specific conditions to increase the penalty and the same cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance. Examples: Quasi-recidivism, & Abuse public position,



All kinds of Aggravating Circumstances must be alleged in the Information in order for it to be appreciated by the court; otherwise, it won’t be considered even if proved during trial. In sum, aggravating circumstances must be both alleged in the Information and proved during trial.



Can the prosecution without alleging an aggravating circumstance in the Information, but proved an aggravating circumstance only for the purpose of collecting higher damages from the accused? -

Yes. Refer to People vs. Ramires, Apr. 10, 2001, People vs. Catubig



What are the Aggravating Circumstances which do not increase the penalty?  Aggravating Circumstances which do not increase the penalty are: 1.) those which in themselves constitute a crime; 2.) those which are included by law in defining a crime (Art. 62, RPC); &  For example, Article 299 of the RPC defines the crime of Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice devoted to worship. In its definition, it includes the aggravating circumstances mentioned in Article 14, pars. 18 & 19 of the RPC. Since these aggravating circumstances under Article 14, pars. 18 & 19 of the RPC are already included in the definition of the crime of Robbery in an Inhabited House or Public Building or Edifice devoted to worship, they will no longer have the effect of increasing the penalty.

3.) inherent aggravating circumstances.

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances:

circumstances. -

The

following

are

aggravating

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.

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. 4. That the act be ungratefulness.

committed

with

abuse

of

confidence

or

obvious

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. 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. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. 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. 11.That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. -

Here, the crime is committed by two persons; the giver and the receiver.

-

The price, reward, or promise must be the primary consideration for the commission of the crime by the principal by direct participation. In other words, the principal by direct participation would not have committed the crime had the price, reward, or promise was not given to him by the principal by induction or inducement. (People vs. Paredes, G.R. No. L-19149)

-

U.S. vs. Flores, G.R. No. 9008, if price, reward, or promise was given after the crime had been committed would not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance

-

If price, reward, or promise was the primary consideration for killing the victim and the victim was killed, such price, reward, or promise shall be a qualifying circumstance for the crime of murder.

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. -

If the act committed is killing 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, and the victim died, the means of killing the victim shall be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance of the crime of murder.

-

People vs. Malngan, en banc decision, Sept. 26, 2006, if the offender’s main purpose is to burn a building but death results, the crime would be arson. But if the main purpose is to kill a person who is inside the house being burned, the crime is murder.

-

People vs. Baluntong

-

People vs. Soria (2020 not en banc decision) and People vs. Villacorta (2008 en banc decision)

13.That the act be committed with evident premeditation. -

Requisites of Evident Premeditation: a.) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; b.) the act manifestly indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; c.) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. (People vs. Sabangan, G.R. No. 191722) There is sufficient lapse of time when there is a gap of at least 3-hours from the time that the accused had decided to commit the crime to the actual commission of the crime. (People vs. Gausi, June 29, 1965) People vs. Dumdum – at least 1-hour of gap People vs. Crisostomo, Oct. 23, 1981 – at least 2-hours of gap People vs. Duavez, Dec. 7, 2011 – at least 2-hours and a half is not sufficient

-

In error in personae and aberration ictus, evident premeditation shall not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the actual victim is not the intended victim who was the object of the premeditation.

-

In praeter intentionem, there is only one victim. Hence, evident premeditation shall be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.

-

If the offender premeditated on the killing of any person, evident premeditation shall be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance if he had killed any person.

14.That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. -

Craft involves mental trickery and cunning act. Peopl vs. Guy, People vs. Nunez, July 23, 1997.

-

Fraud refers the use of words. US vs. Avilendi 1st Phil Reports 568

-

Disguise refers to the use of any device to conceal the identity of the accused. People vs. Sebu, March 29, 2017. The purpose of wearing mask is to conceal the identity of the accused, if the victim was able to recognize the accused despite the wearing of disguise, disguise will not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance because the purpose of the disguise to conceal his identity was not accomplished.

15.That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. -

Abuse of superior strength, or employment of means to weaken the defense.

-

Superior strength may refer to superiority in number, or in force, or in arms or weapons. It must be proved that the accused purposely took advantage of any of this superiority in committing a crime. No abuse of superior strength arises when the offender attacks with passion or obfuscation because passion or obfuscation negates the intent of the accused to purposely take advantage of hi superiority. There could be superior strength if the accused is superior in force (mas kusgan), like, when the accused killed a 6-month old baby. –People vs. Gacho, 103 SCRA

-

Employing mean to weaken the defense means when the accused used means to weaken the victim like alcoholic beverages, or throwing sand to the eyes of the victim.

16.That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). 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. -

REQUISITES of Treachery: a.) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and b.) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

-

Treachery and Evident Premeditation are similar in the sense that there is planning, but sufficient interval of time in evident premeditation need not be proved in treachery.

-

If there was an argument or altercation or quarrel between the accused and the victim immediately preceded the act of killing, there is no treachery. The mere fact of sudden attack would not constitute treachery. It must be established that the accused deliberately or consciously adopted the means of committing the crime without risk to himself.

-

People vs. Vilbar.

-

However, killing a child of tender years even if the mode of attack is not proved, there will always be treachery which will qualify the crime to murder.

-

Even if the attack is frontal or face-to-face, it does not discount treachery as long as the attack was sudden, unexpected and the means used was deliberately adopted.

-

The amount of evidence required to prove treachery shall be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

-

When there is no treachery from the start of the attack , treachery cannot be appreciated even if the victim is defenseless at the end of the attacked provided that the attack was continuous.

-

The accused attack the victim (who is a governor). The accused went inside the office of the victim. They had an altercation and after which the accused fire a shot at the victim. The victim was able to run, but eventually she was cornered by the accused. The victim hid inside the closet in a position where the accused could not reach him. The accused stopped for a while and tried to look for the head of the victim. After discerning where the head of the victim was, he fired at the victim and hitting it. Consequently, the victim died. There is treachery in this case because there was an interruption of the attack when the accused stopped for a while and tried to look for the head of the victim. In other words, no treachery at the first continuous attack, but since there was an interruption, the treachery can be appreciated at the final stage of attack. It is this interruption that allowed the accused to deliberate or consciously adopt the means of executing the crime.

-

Treachery applies only to a principal by direct participation, unless the principal by inducement agreed with the principal by direct participation as to the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means constituting treachery.

-

Superior strength, aid of armed men, band, means to weaken the defense, craft, night time, poison, disregard of age or of sex are abused by treachery.

-

Distinguish Treachery from Evident Premeditation. treachery is appreciated ONLY in crimes against PERSONS.

Note

that

17.That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. -

Ignominy refers to moral suffering of the victim which puts the victim to shame, adds disgrace to the material injury, or makes the effect of the crime more humiliating to the victim.

-

Example: Forcible abduction, then gang raped, People vs. Jose 1971

-

U.S. vs. Iglecia, 21 Phil. Reports 55

-

Scuffing at the corpse

-

People vs. Regala, 329 SCRA 709,

-

Refer to Art. 14, par. 20, CRUELTY

18.That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. -

Unlawful Entry, means, the accused used an opening which is not normally used as the point of entry. (Refer to Dwelling People vs. Baruga, People vs. Mendiola

19.That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438). -

For this aggravating circumstance to be considered, the motor vehicle must be used both in the commission of the crime and in facilitating the escape of the accused.

-

People vs. Punzalan, Dec. 10, 2012

20.That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions. -

CRUELTY, refer to IGNOMINY in Art. 14, par. 17 of the RPC

-

The accused subjects the victim to physical suffering and he enjoyed that the victim is suffering before he killed the victim.

-

The victim must still be alive while he is subjected to physical suffering.

-...