PARAGRAPH 13

That
the
act
premeditation.

be

committed

with

SECOND REQUISITE NECESSARY

The premeditation must be based upon external acts
(must be notorious and manifest) and not presumed from
mere lapse of time.

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.

Existence of ill-feeling or grudge alone is not proof

of evident premeditation

*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.

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.

*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.

*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.

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.

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.
-

PARAGRAPH 14
That (1) craft,
employed.

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.
DISGUISE
Resorting to any device to conceal identity.

be

APPLICATION
This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or
mental rather than physical means to which the criminal
resorts to carry out his design.

(2)

fraud,

or

(3)

disguise

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.

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.

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.
-

But craft is not attendant where the unlawful scheme

could have been carried out just the same even without
the pretense.

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.

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).

*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.

BY A BAND AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH,

distinguished
-

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.

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 THE VICTIM TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

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.

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.

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.

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

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

them arising from any defense which the victim could

have made.
When treachery is not present
when the attack was perpetrated in a frontal encounter
when the assailants did not make any deliberate, surprise
attack on the victim
when the assailants did not consciously adopt a
treacherous mode of attack
the accused and his companions did not camouflage their
hostile intentions.
when the mode of attack negated the existence of
treachery since the element of surprise, which
marks the presence of treachery, was absent.
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.
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.
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.

*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

1.
2.
3.
4.

impulsively done.
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
victim asleep
victim half-awake or just awakened
victim grappling or being held
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.

No treachery where the attack is preceded by a

warning.
calling attention of victim not necessarily a warning.
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.

was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery

was present at the moment the fatal blow was given.
*
*

TREACHERY, ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH,

AND MEANS AND WAYS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN
DEFENSE, distinguished
-

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

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.

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.

the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding

ignominy thereto.
-

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

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

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.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY IS NOT
TRESPASS TO DWELLING

AGGRAVATING

IN

PARAGRAPH 19
That as a means to the commission of a crime, a
wall, roof, floor, door, or window, be broken.
BASIS
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to
commit a crime.
*The Supreme Court called
circumstance of forcible entry

this

as

aggravating

*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 .