AGGRAVATING CIRMUSTANCES penalty in the maximum period.

ART. 14 Examples:
a. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
b. Complex crime (Art. 48)
Aggravating circumstances c. Error in personae (Art. 49)
d. Taking advantage of public position and membership in
Those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime: an organized or syndicated crime group (Art. 62, par. 1[a])
1. Serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum
period provided by law for the offense, or NOTE: Under Sec. 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised
2. Change the nature of the crime. Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information or complaint; otherwise,
Basis they cannot be properly appreciated.

They are based on the greater perversity of the offender Generic aggravating v. Qualifying circumstances
manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
1. The motivating power itself QUALIFYING
2. The place of commission GENERIC AGGRAVATING
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
3. The means and ways employed CIRCUMSTANCES
4. The time EFFECT: Gives the crime
5. The personal circumstances of the offender or the EFFECT : When not offset its proper and exclusive
offended party by any mitigating name and places the author
circumstance, Increases of the crime in such a
Kinds the penalty which should be situation as to deserve no
imposed upon the accused other penalty than that
1. Generic or those that can generally apply to almost all to the maximum period but specially prescribed by law
crimes. without exceeding the limit for said crimes (People v.
Examples: prescribed by law Bayot, 64Phil269,
a. Dwelling 273)
b. Recidivism If not alleged in the
To be considered as such,
c. In consideration of price, reward or promise information, a qualifying
MUST be alleged in the
d. Night time aggravating circumstance
information
will be considered generic
2. Specific or those that apply only to particular crimes. GR: Cannot be offset by
Examples: Can be offset by an any mitigating
a. Cruelty in crimes against persons (Art. 14) ordinary mitigating circumstances
b. Treachery in crimes against persons (Art. 14) circumstance XPN: Privileged mitigating
c. The victim is a person in authority, in physical injures circumstances
(Art. 265, par. 3).
d. Unlicensed firearms in robbery in band (Art. 296), now NOTE: When there is more than one qualifying
also aggravating in homicide, murder, parricide (People v. aggravating circumstance present, one of them will be
Marcos) appreciated as qualifying aggravating while the others will
e. Abuse of authority or confidential relations by guardians be considered as generic aggravating.
or curators in seduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness,
white slavery and corruption of minors (Art. 346) Circumstances which aggravate criminal liability
f. The use of an unlicensed firearm or any firearm in
unlawful manner is considered as only a specific 1. Advantage taken of public position
aggravating circumstance in the murder or homicide 2. Contempt or insult to public authorities
committed therewith (People v. Costales, G.R. 141154-56, 3. Disregard of age, sex, or dwelling of the offended party
January 15, 2002). 4. Abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness
5. Palace and places of commission of offense
3. Qualifying or those that change the nature of the 6. Nighttime, uninhabited place or band
crime. 7. On occasion of calamity or misfortune
Examples: 8. Aid of armed men, etc.
a. By means of poison 9. Recidivist
b. With the aid of armed men 10. Reiteracion
c. Treachery, in killing persons 11. Price, reward, or promise
d. Grave abuse of confidence which makes stealing as 12. By means of inundation, fire, etc.
qualified theft 13. Evident premeditation
14. Craft, fraud or disguise
4. Inherent or those that must of necessity accompany 15. Superior strength or means to weaken the defense
the commission of the crime. 16. Treachery
Examples: 17. Ignominy
a. Abuse of public office in bribery 18. Unlawful entry
b. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a house in 19. Breaking wall
robbery with the use of force upon things
20. Aid of minor or by means of motor vehicle or other
c. Fraud in estafa similar means
d. Deceit in simple seduction 21. Cruelty
e. Ignominy in rape
f. Evident premeditation in robbery and estafa Position and standing of the accused in the
g. Disregard of respect due the offended party on account community considered as aggravating
of rank in direct assault
h. Superior strength in treason Where a person found guilty of violation of Gambling law
i. cruelty in mutilation is a man of station or standing in the community,
the maximum penalty should be imposed (U.S. v.
5. Special or those that cannot be offset by an ordinary Salaveria, G.R. No. L-13678, November 12, 1918).
mitigating circumstance and has the result of imposing the
Aggravating circumstances which do not have the
effect of increasing the penalty
Aggravating circumstances which:
1. In themselves constitute a crime especially punishable
by law
2. Included by law in defining a crime and prescribing
penalty
3. Inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of
necessity accompany the commission thereof
Aggravating circumstances personal to the offenders
Aggravating circumstances which arise:
1. From the moral attributes of the offender
2. From his private relations with the offended party
3. From any other personal cause
Appreciation of personal aggravating circumstances
It shall only serve to aggravate the liability of those
persons as to whom such circumstances are attendant
(Art. 62, par. 3).
Appreciation of an aggravating circumstance if there
are several accused
GR: The circumstances which serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein are those which consist in the:
1. Material execution of the act; or
2. Means employed to accomplish it
XPN: When there is proof of conspiracy, in which case the
act of one is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of lack
of knowledge of the facts constituting the circumstance
(Art. 62, par. 4).
1. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
means:
1. Of personal circumstance of the offender.
2. Used to secure the commission of the crime.
Taking advantage of public position
It is considered as an aggravating circumstance only
when the offender is a public officer. The offender must
have:
1. Abused his public position; or
2. At least, the use of the same facilitated the commission
of the offense.
NOTE: To be applicable the public officer must have used
his: (IPA)
a. Influence
b. Prestige
c. Ascendancy
There is no abuse of public position when the offender
could have perpetuated the crime even without occupying
his position.
When the public officer did not take advantage of the
influence of his position, this aggravating circumstance is
not present
When taking advantage of public position not
considered as an aggravating circumstance
This circumstance is not applicable in offenses where
taking advantage of official position is made by law an
integral element of the crime, such as in malversation or in
falsification of document committed by public officers.
2. CONTEMPT OR INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his
lack of respect for the public authorities.
Requisites of contempt of insult to public authorities
as an aggravating circumstance
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of
his functions.
2. Such authority is not the person against whom the
crime is committed.
3. Offender knows him to be a public authority
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from
committing the crime.
Public authority
Public authority also called Person in authority is a public
officer directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a
person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay
chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority (Art
152 as amended by P.D. No. 1232).
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: Teachers, professors and persons charged with
the supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the
actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, are persons in authority
only for purposes of direct assault and simple resistance.
􀂃 the crime should not be committed against the public
authority (otherwise it will constitute direct assault under
Art.148)
􀂃 this is NOT applicable when committed in the presence
of a mere agent.
AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the
maintenance of public order and protection and security of
life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
Requisite that the offender has knowledge that the
public authority is present
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.
Lack of such knowledge indicates lack of intention to insult
the public authority.
3. DISREGARD OF RANK, SEX, AGE OR DWELLING
Par. 3 provides for four aggravating circumstances which,
if present in the same case, should be considered
independently of each other and numerically reckoned
accordingly (People v. Santos, et al., 91 Phil. 320).
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
personal circumstances of the offended party and the
place of commission.
Ways in committing the aggravating circumstance
under this paragraph
The act be committed:
1. With insult or in disregard of the respect due to the
offended party on account of his: (RAS)
a. Rank
b. Age
c. Sex
2. That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given sufficient provocation.
“With insult or in disregard“
In the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended
party.
Rank
It refers to official, civil, or social position or standing. The
designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative
position of the offended party in reference to others. There
must be a difference in the social condition of the offender
and the offended party.
Age
Age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age or
is of old age. It applies when the offender is the father,
mother, son or daughter of the offended party.
Sex
Sex refers to female sex, not to male sex
When aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank,
age, sex not considered for the purpose of increasing
penalty
1. When the offender acted with passion or obfuscation
(All three circumstances)
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended
party and the offender (circumstance of sex only), e.g.
parricide, rape, abduction and seduction.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable
in the commission of the crime.
NOTE: Disregard of rank, age or sex is essentially
applicable only to crimes against honor or persons. They
are not taken into account in crimes against property.
They do not apply to the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide which is classified as crime against property
(U.S. v. Samonte, 8 Phil. 286).
Dwelling
Dwelling is a building or structure exclusively used for rest
or comfort includes temporary dwelling, dependencies,
foot of the staircase and enclosure of the house. It does
not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the
offended party or that he must be the owner thereof. He
must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein even
for a temporary duration or purpose.
NOTE: It is not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the
offense. It is enough that the victim was attacked inside
his own house, although the assailant may have devised
means to perpetrate the assault, i.e. triggerman fired the
shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. Even if
the person attacked is only a welcomed guest of the
owner of the dwelling as long as he nor the owner gives
no provocation, there is an aggravating circumstance of
dwelling.
What aggravates the commission of the crime in
one’s dwelling:
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.
When dwelling is not aggravating
1. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and
immediate provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the provocation
made by the victim and the commission of the crime by
the accused.
2. When the offender and the offended party are
occupants of the same house, and this is true even if
offender is a servant in the house.
XPN: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the
same is aggravating; however, if one of the dwellers
therein becomes a paramour, the applicable aggravating
circumstance is abuse of confidence.
3. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon
things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is inherent.
However, dwelling is 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 party’s house.
4. In the crime of trespass to dwelling.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner or occupant of the dwelling
2. Sufficient
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime
NOTE: If all of these are present, the offended party is
deemed to have given provocation, and the fact that the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is
NOT an aggravating circumstance.
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
means and ways employed.
NOTE: These are two separate aggravating
circumstances.
Abuse of confidence
This circumstance exists only when the offended party
has trusted the offender who later abuses such trust by
committing the crime. Abuse of confidence requires a
special confidential relationship between the offender and
the victim, while this is not required for there to be obvious
ungratefulness.
Requisites of abuse of confidence
1. The offended party had trusted the offender.
2. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime
against the offended party
3. The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of
the crime
NOTE: The confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal, as would give the accused the
advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime.
The confidence must be a means of facilitating the
commission of a crime.
Abuse of confidence is inherent in the following
crimes
1. Malversation (Art. 217)
2. Qualified Theft (Art. 310)
3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art 315)
4. Qualified Seduction (Art. 337)
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender
2. Abused such trust by committing a crime against the
offended party
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
NOTE: The ungratefulness must be such clear and
manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.
5. PALACE AND PLACES OF COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENSE
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
place of the commission of the crime, which must be
respected.
Places of commission of offenses
The crime is committed:
1. In the palace of the Chief Executive; or
2. In his presence ; or
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties; or
4. In a place dedicated to religious worship
NOTE: The place where public authorities are discharging
their duties is not aggravating in direct assault on a person
then engaged in the performance of judicial duties
because the circumstance is absorbed in the nature of the
crime (People v. Perez, CA, 57 O.G. 1598).
That the Chief Executive is engaged in his official
functions is not necessary
It is not necessary that the Chief Executive is engaged in
his official functions. The presence of the Chief Executive
alone in any place where the crime is committed is
enough to constitute the aggravating circumstance, but
the offender must be aware of the presence of the
President.
NOTE: In contrast, public authorities must actually be
engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be
some performance of public functions.
Par. 5 (places commission) v. Par. 2 (insult to public
authorities)
PAR. 5 PAR. 2
Public duty is performed in Public duty is performed
their Office outside their Office
The offended party may or
Public authority should not
may not be the public
be the offended party
authority
In both, public authorities are in the performance of their
duties.
Crimes committed in the Malacañang palace or
church are always aggravating
Regardless of whether State or Official or Religious
Functions are being held.
Place dedicated to religious worship
The place must be permanently dedicated to public
religious worship. Private chapels are not included.
NOTE: To be considered aggravating, the accused must
have purposely sought the place for the commission of the
crime and that he committed it there notwithstanding the
respect to which it was entitled, and not where it was only
an accidental or incidental circumstance (People v.
Jauringe, et al., 76 Phil. 174).
􀂃 Except for the third, which requires that official functions
are being performed at the time of the commission of the
crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se
even if no official duties or acts of religious worship are
being conducted there.
􀂃 Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not
considered as place dedicated to the worship of God.
6. NIGHT TIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR BY A BAND
Consideration of the circumstances
These circumstances should be considered separately.
Instances when nighttime, uninhabited place or band
are considered aggravating
When:
1. It facilitated the commission of the crime.
2. It especially sought for by the offender to ensure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity.
NOTE: “Especially sought” means that the offender
sought it in order to realize the crime with more ease.
“Impunity” means to prevent the offender from being
recognized or to secure himself against detection and
punishment.
3. The offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of
impunity.
NOTE: “Took advantage” means that the accused availed
himself thereof for the successful consummation of his
plans.
Nighttime
Nighttime or nocturnity is a period from after sunset to
sunrise, from dusk to dawn. It is necessary that the
commission of the crime was commenced and completed
at nighttime.
Darkness of the night makes nighttime an aggravating
circumstance. Hence when the place of the crime is
illuminated or sufficiently lighted, nighttime is not
aggravating. It is also necessary that the commission of
the crime was begun and completed at nighttime. Hence,
where the series of acts necessary for its commission was
begun at daytime and was completed that night (People v.
Luchico, 49 Phil. 689), or was begun at night and
consummated the following day (U.S. v. Dowdell, Jr., et
al., 11 Phil 4), the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
was not applied.
NOTE: Lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does
not negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. It
must be shown that the offender purposely sought the
cover of the darkness to commit the crime, or that the
nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime.
Reasons why nighttime is considered aggravating
1. During nighttime, recognition of the accused is harder.
2. Harder for the victim to defend himself.
3. Night time provides security for the accused.
4. Mere presence of darkness gives others anxiety or fear.
Rule in the appreciation of nighttime and treachery in
the commission of a crime
GR: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery
XPN: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and
nocturnity were deliberately decided upon, they can be
considered separately if such circumstances have
different factual bases.
􀂃 In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30,
1966), nighttime was considered since it was purposely
sought, and treachery was further appreciated because
the victim’s hands and arms were tied together before he
was beaten up by the accused.
􀂃 In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was
treachery as the victim was stabbed while lying face up
and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon
proof that it facilitated the commission of the offense and
was taken advantage of by the accused.
Uninhabited place (despoblado)
It is where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town or where the houses are
scattered at a great distance from each other. It is not
determined by the distance of the nearest house to the
scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of the
commission of the offense there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help.
Instances when uninhabited place is aggravating
To be aggravating, it is necessary that the offender took
advantage of the place and purposely availed of it as to
make it easier to commit the crime. The offender must
choose the place as an aid either:
1. To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their
criminal designs; or
2. To insure concealment of the offense
Band
It means that there are at least four armed malefactors
acting together in the commission of the offense.
If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by
inducement, they do not form a band because it is
undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation.
The RPC does not require any particular arms or
weapons, so any instrument or implement, which by
reason of intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was
made or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting
serious injuries.
The aggravating circumstance of by a band is considered
in crimes against property and in crimes against persons
or in the crime of illegal detention or treason.
This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes
against chastity.
“By a band” is inherent in brigandage
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
7. ON OCCASION OF CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER
CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.
Basis
The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference
to the time of the commission of the crime. The reason is
the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the
midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the
afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune.
When considered as an aggravating circumstance
The crime is committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity of
misfortune and the offender takes advantage of it.
NOTE: Calamity or misfortune refers to other conditions of
distress similar to the enumeration preceded by it.
If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party
during the calamity/misfortune, this aggravating
circumstance may not be taken into consideration.
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
When such circumstance is present
It is present when the crime it is attached to is committed
with the aid of:
1. Armed men , or
2. Persons who insure or afford impunity
Requisites
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied
upon them when the crime is committed,
NOTE: Arms is not limited to firearms. Bolos, knives,
sticks and stones are included. Aid of armed men includes
armed women.
This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed
men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity
directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely
present at the crime scene. Neither should they constitute
a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance
would be cuadrilla.
Circumstances when aid of armed men is not
considered as an aggravating circumstance
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked
were equally armed
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated
with him in the commission of the crime acted under the
same plan and for the same purpose.
3. The casual presence of the armed men near the place
where the crime was committed when the accused did not
avail himself of their aid or relied upon them to commit the
crime.
Q: What aggravating circumstance will be considered
if there are four armed men?
A: If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is
absorbed in employment of a band. If there are three
armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the
aggravating circumstance.
Crime committed by a band under paragraph 6 v.
Crime committed with the aid of armed men under
paragraph 8
WITH THE AID OF
BY BAND
ARMED MEN
(PAR. 6)
(PAR. 8)
Requires more than three At least two armed
people malefactors
This circumstance is
At least four malefactors
present even if one of the
shall have acted together in
offenders merely relied on
the commission of an
their aid, actual aid is not
offense
necessary
􀂃 If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is
absorbed in employment of a band. If there are three
armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the
aggravating circumstance.
􀂃 “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”
9. RECIDIVISM
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 the Revised
Penal Code.
Ratio
The law considers this aggravating circumstance because
when a person has been committing felonies embraced in
the same title, the implication that he is specializing on
such kind of crime and the law wants to prevent any
specialization.
Requisites
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense.
2. He was previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime.
3. Both the first and second offense are embraced in the
same title of the RPC.
4. Offender is convicted of the new offense.
GR: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the
same in the information and to attach thereto certified
copy of the sentences rendered against the accused.
XPN: If the accused does not object and when he admits
in his confession and on the witness stand.
Effect of recidivism in the application of penalties
GR: Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance,
recidivism affects only the periods of a penalty.
XPN: In prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202), and
gambling (P.D. 1602, which repealed Art. 192 of the
Code) wherein recidivism increases the penalties by
degrees.
“At the time of his trial for one crime”
It is employed in its generic sense, including the rendering
of the judgment, it is meant to include everything that is
done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after
sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL, not the
time of the commission of the offense.
Q: Suppose, the first offense in 1975 was homicide,
then the second offense in 2004 was murder. Can
aggravating circumstance of recidivism be
appreciated?
A: Yes, because homicide and murder are crimes both
under crimes against persons, hence both crimes are
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Necessity of conviction to come in the order in which
they are convicted
Hence, there is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction
is for an offense committed prior to the offense involved in
the previous conviction.
NOTE: If both offenses were committed on the same date,
they shall be considered as only one, hence, they cannot
be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism.
Also, judgments of conviction handed down on the same
day shall be considered as only one conviction.
Effect of pardon to recidivism
GR: Pardon does not obliterate recidivism, even if it is
absolute because it only excuse the service of the penalty
not the conviction.
XPN: If the offender had already served out his sentence
and was subsequently extended pardon.
NOTE: If The President extends pardon to someone who
already served out the principal penalty, there is a
presumed intention to remove recidivism.
Effect of amnesty to recidivism
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects, thus it
obliterates recidivism.
Recidivism not subject to prescription
No matter how long ago the offender was convicted, if he
is subsequently convicted of a crime embraced in the
same title of the RPC, it is taken into account as
aggravating in imposing the penalty (People v. Colocar,
60 Phil. 878).
10. REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender as shown by his
inclination to crimes.
Requisites
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. The he previously served sentence for another to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that
for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
NOTE: It is the penalty attached to the offense, not the
penalty actually imposed that is actually considered.
Reiteracion v. Recidivism
REITERACION RECIDIVISM
It is necessary that the
It is enough that a final
offender shall have served
judgment has been
out his sentence for his first
rendered in the first offense
offense
Previous and subsequent
Offenses should be
offenses must not be
included in the same title of
embraced in the same title
the RPC
of the RPC
THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:
1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on
separate occasions, is convicted of two offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic
aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – Where
the offender has been previously punished for an offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or
for two crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. This is
a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art. 62,
par, 5) – Where a person within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the said crimes a
third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary aggravating
circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person
commits felony before beginning to serve or while serving
sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a
special aggravating circumstance.
􀂃 Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly
served the sentence for his previous conviction/s, or is
legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism
cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion , hence this
aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a quasi-
recidivist.
􀂃 If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and
reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
11. IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE
REWARD OR PROMISE
Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the
motivating power itself.
Requisites of “in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise”
1. There are at least two principals
a. Principal by inducement (one who offers)
b. Principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the criminal act.
NOTE: The price, reward or promise need not consist of
or refer to material things, or that the same were actually
delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made by the
principal by inducement be accepted by the principal by
direct participation before the commission of the offense.
Appreciation
It is appreciated against both the principal by inducement
and principal by direct participation.
Effect on criminal liability of the one giving the offer
This aggravating circumstance affects or aggravates not
only the criminal liability of the receiver of the price,
reward or promise but also the criminal liability of the one
giving the offer.
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward, or
promise must be the primary reason or the primordial
motive for the commission of the crime.
Illustration: If A approached B and told the latter what he
thought of X, and B answered “he is a bad man” to which
A retorted, “you see I am going to kill him this afternoon”.
And so, B told him, “if you do that I’ll give you P5,000.00”
and after killing X, A again approached B, told him he had
already killed X, and B in compliance with his promise,
delivered the P5,000.00. In this case, the aggravating
circumstance is not present.
12. BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POSION,
EXPLOSION ETC.
Aggravating circumstances under this paragraph
If the crime be committed by means of:
1. Inundation
2. Fire
3. Explosion
4. Poison
5. Stranding of the vessel or intentional damage thereto
6. Derailment of locomotion ; or
7. By use of any other artifice involving great waste and
ruin
NOTE: Any of these circumstances cannot be considered
to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the
offense, unless used by the offender as means to
accomplish a criminal purpose.
It is also not aggravating when the law in defining the
crime includes them. E.g. Fire is not aggravating in the
crime of arson.
Rules as to the use of fire
1. Intent was only to burn but somebody died – The crime
is arson, the penalty is higher because somebody died.
2. If fire was used as means to kill – the crime is murder
not arson and fire cannot be appreciated as aggravating
circumstance.
3. There was an intention to kill and fire was used to
conceal the crime – there are two separate crimes: arson
and murder.
PAR. 7 “on the occasion
PAR. 12 “by means of
of a conflagration,
inundation, fire, etc.”
shipwreck, etc.
The crime is committed by
The crime is committed on
means of any such acts
the occasion of a calamity
involving great waste or
or misfortune.
ruin.
13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Basis
The basis has reference to the ways of committing the
crime.
Essence
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and upon
reflection to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Requisites
1. Determination – the time when the offender determined
to commit the crime.
2. Preparation – an act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. Time – 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.
Reason for requiring sufficient time
The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and
serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and the
consequences what he planned to do, an interval long
enough for his conscience and better judgment to
overcome his evil desire.
Appreciation of evident premeditation in error in
personae and aberratio ictus
GR: Evident premeditation is not appreciated in error in
personae and aberratio ictus.
NOTE: However, it is not necessary to have the intent to
kill a particular person.
XPNs:
1. When there is no particular intended victim or particular
person to kill.
2. Where the victim belonged to the same class or family
designated by the accused.
Conspiracy presupposes premeditation
GR: Conspiracy generally denotes premeditation.
XPN: In implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may
not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and
when the plan to kill the victim was hatched or what time
had elapsed before it was carried out.
14. CRAFT, FRAUD, OR DISGUISE
Appreciation
To be appreciated, these circumstances must have
facilitated or be taken advantage of by the offender in the
commission of a crime.
NOTE: According to Justice Regalado, the fine
distinctions between craft and fraud would not really be
called for as these terms in Art. 14 are variants of means
employed to deceive the victim and if all are present in the
same case, they shall be applied as a single aggravating
circumstance.
Craft
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part
of the accused in order not to arouse the suspicion of the
victim.
Fraud
Fraud is insidious words or machinations used to induce
the victim to act in a manner which enables the offender to
carry out his design.
FRAUD CRAFT
Where there is a direct The act of the accused
inducement by insidious done in order not to arouse
words or machinations, the suspicion of the victim
fraud is present. constitutes craft.
NOTE: Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if
they have been deliberately adopted as means, methods
or forms for the treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist
independently where they are adopted for a different
purpose in the commission of the crime.
Ex:
􀂃 In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980) , where the
accused pretended to hire the driver in order to get his
vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed to the
theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
driver.
􀂃 In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986) there was also
craft where after hitching a ride, the accused requested
the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody, when
in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.
Disguise
Disguise means resorting to any device to conceal
identity.
NOTE: The test of disguise is whether the device or
contrivance, or even the assumed name resorted to by the
offender was intended to make identification more difficult.
Necessity that the accused be able to hide his identity
all throughout the commission of the crime
It is not necessary that the accused be able to hide his
identity all throughout the commission of the crime. The
accused must be able to hide his identity during the initial
stage if not all throughout the commission of the crime
and his identity must have been discovered only later on
to consider this aggravating circumstance.
Test in order to determine if disguise exist
Whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the
offender was intended to or did make identification more
difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair or beard.
If in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized,
disguise cannot be aggravating.
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel
constitutes disguise.
Craft, Fraud and Disguise distinguished
CRAFT FRAUD DISGUISE
Involves the use Involves the use
Involves the use
of intellectual of direct
of devise to
trickery and inducement by
conceal identity
cunning not to insidious
15. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS
EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
Abuse of superior strength
Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there
is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of in the commission of the
crime (People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA 233 [1994]).
Abuse of superior strength considered as aggravating
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength depends on the age, size, and strength of the
parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor.
NOTE: For abuse of superior strength, the test is the
relative strength of the offender and his victim, and
whether or not he took advantage of his greater strength.
Superiority in number does not necessarily mean
superiority in strength. The accused must have
cooperated and intended to use or secure advantage from
their superiority in strength (People v. Basas, G.R. No. L-
34251, Jan. 30, 1982).
Determination of the presence of abuse of superiority
Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the
aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim,
considering the position of both and the employment of
means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it.
The aggressor must have taken advantage of his natural
strength to insure the commission of the crime (People v.
Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272, March 14, 2011).
“ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
“BY A BAND”
STRENGTH”
The element of band is The gravamen of abuse of
appreciated when the superiority is the taking
offense is committed by advantage by the culprits of
more than three armed their collective strength to
malefactors regardless of overpower their relatively
the comparative strength of weaker victim or victims.
the victim or victims.
Hence, what is taken into
account here is not the
number of aggressors nor
the fact that they are
armed, but their relative
physical strength vis-a vis
the offended party.
NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla
(“band”).
“Means to weaken the defense”
It exists when the offended party’s resisting power is
materially weakened.
NOTE: Means to weaken the defense may be absorbed in
treachery. E.g. When the accused throws a sand directly
into the eyes of his victim, this has the effect of weakening
the defense of his victim as well as insuring the execution
of his act without risk to himself. In this case, only one
aggravating circumstance will be appreciated, namely
treachery, and the circumstance of means to weaken the
defense will already be absorbed.
Requisites of means to weaken the defense
1. Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense
of the victim to resist the assault
2. The means used must not totally eliminate possible
defense of the victim, otherwise, it will fall under treachery.
Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts
sand or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills
him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.
NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes
against persons, and sometimes against person and
property, such as robbery with physical injuries or
homicide.
16. TREACHERY
Basis
The means and ways employed in the commission of the
crime.
Treachery
Treachery (aleviosa) refers to the employment of means,
method, or form in the commission of the crime which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. It means that the offended party was
not given the opportunity to defend himself.
Essence
The essence of the qualifying circumstance is the
suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the
attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim of any real
opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the
commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.
Likewise, even when the victim was forewarned of the
danger to his person, treachery may still be appreciated
since what is decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412,
September 7, 2011).
Elements of treachery
1. The employment of means of execution that would
insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of
the intended victim and leaving the latter without an
opportunity to defend himself
2. The means employed were deliberately or consciously
adopted by the offender (People of the Philippines v.
Wenceslao Nelmida, et al, G.R. No. 184500, September
11, 2012).
Test of treachery
The test of treachery is not only the relative position of the
parties but more specifically whether or not the victim was
forewarned or afforded the opportunity to make a defense
or to ward off the attack.
Rules regarding treachery
1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods, or forms insure its execution but need
not insure accomplishment of crime.
3. The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender,
and must not spring from the unexpected turns of events
NOTE: Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or
obfuscation (People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634,
Sept. 12, 2002).
Frontal attack does not negate the presence of
treachery
Although frontal, if the attack was unexpected, and the
unarmed victim was in no position to repel the attack,
treachery can still be appreciated (People v. Pelis, G.R.
No. 189328, February 21, 2011). Ignominy is applicable in:

a. Crimes against chastity,

Appreciation of treachery in error in personae and
aberratio ictus
Treachery is appreciated in error in personae and
aberratio ictus, provided that the offender consciously
employed treacherous means to insure the execution of
the crime and to render the victim defenseless.
Appreciation of both evident premeditation and
treachery
Evident premeditation and treachery can co-exist because
evident premeditation refers to the commission of the
crime while treachery refers to the manner employed.
b. Less serious physical injuries,
c. Light or grave coercion, and
d. Murder.
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of
his wife
The circumstance of ignominy was not present because
no means employed nor did any circumstance surround
the act tending to make the effects of crime more
humiliating.
Ignominy when a woman is raped in the presence of
his husband

Appreciation of treachery in robbery with homicide
Treachery can be appreciated in Robbery with homicide
even though it is a crime against property because one of
its components is a crime against person.
Ignominy can be appreciated. Rape is now a crime
against persons (R.A. 8353). Presence of the husband
qualifies the crime of rape under Art. 266.
Ignominy v. Cruelty

Instances that may be absorbed by treachery IGNOMINY CRUELTY

Ignominy refers to the
1. Abuse of superior strength Refers to the physical
moral effect of a crime and
2. Aid of armed men suffering of the victim
it pertains to the moral
3. By a band purposely intended by the
order, whether or not the
4. Means to weaken the defense offender
victim is dead or alive.
5. Craft
6. Nighttime
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY
Time when the element of treachery must be present
Unlawful entry
1. When the aggression is continuous -treachery must be
present at the beginning of the assault. Unlawful entry is aggravating when one who acts, not
2. When the assault was not continuous- it is sufficient respecting the walls erected by men to guard their
that treachery was present when the fatal blow was given. property and provided for their personal safety, shows
greater perversity, a greater audacity and hence the law
Q: A followed the unsuspecting victim, B when he punishes him with more severity.
was going home and thereafter, deliberately stabbed
him in the back which resulted in the falling of B to There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a
the ground and thereby was further attacked by A. way not intended for the purpose.
Was there treachery?
NOTE: This circumstance is inherent in the crimes of
A: Yes. B was defenseless and gave him no opportunity trespass to dwelling and robbery with force upon things.
to resist the attack or defend himself. A employed means But it is aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence
which insured the killing of B and such means assured against or intimidation of persons.
him from the risk of B’s defense. Stabbing from behind is
a good indication of treachery (People v Yanson, G.R. No. NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance
179195, October 3, 2011). and not for escape.

ABUSE OF MEANS EMPLOYED 19. BREAKING WALL

TREACHERY SUPERIOR TO WEAKEN
STRENGTH DEFENSE
Requisites
Means, methods
Offender does
or forms are Means are
not employ 1. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
employed by the employed but it
means, methods 2. They were broken to effect entrance
offender to make only materially
or forms of
it impossible or weakens the
attack, he only NOTE: It is aggravating only where the offender resorted
hard for the resisting power of
takes advantage to any of said means to enter the house.
offended party to the offended
of his superior
put any sort of party
strength Instances where breaking is lawful
resistance
1. An officer in order to make an arrest may break open
17. IGNOMINY
door or window of any building in which the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be (Sec. 11, Rule
Ignominy
133 of Rules of Court);
It pertains to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the
material injury caused by the crime. Ignominy adds insult 2. An officer if refused admittance may break open any
to injury or adds shame to the natural effects of the crime. door or window to execute the search warrant or liberate
Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man. himself (Sec. 7, Rule 126 of Rules of Court);

Application 3. Replevin (Sec. 4, Rule 60 of Rules of Court)

 Breaking wall v. Unlawful entry
BREAKING WALL UNLAWFUL ENTRY
It involves the breaking of Presupposes that there is
the enumerated parts of no such breaking as by
the house. entry through the window.
20. AID OF MINORS OR USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS
Aid of minors
The use of a minor in the commission of the crime shows
the greater perversity of the offender because he is
educating the innocent minor in committing a crime. It is
intended to discourage the exploitation of minors by
criminals taking advantage of their irresponsibility and the
leniency of the law for the youthful offender.
􀂃 Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent
practice resorted to by professional criminals to avail
themselves of minors taking advantage of their
irresponsibility.
Use of motor vehicle considered
The use of motor vehicles in the commission of a crime
poses difficulties to the authorities in apprehending the
offenders. This circumstance is aggravating only when
used to facilitate the commission of the offense.
􀂃 Intended to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee
and abscond once the same is committed.
􀂃 Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused
purposely and deliberately used the motor vehicle in going
to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects
thereof, and in facilitating their escape.
NOTE: If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the
offender, motor vehicle is not aggravating as the law says
that “the crime was committed by means of motor
vehicle.”
“Other similar means”
It should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles
or other efficient means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.
21. CRUELTY
Cruelty
There is cruelty when the wrong done was intended to
prolong the suffering of the victim, causing him
unnecessary moral and physical pain.
NOTE: The basis of this aggravating circumstance is the
means and ways employed in the commission of the
crime.
Requisites
1. The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing
other wrong.
2. The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of
the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty not inherent in crimes against persons
In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive
proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim
were inflicted while he was still alive to unnecessarily
prolong physical suffering.
NOTE: In mutilation, outraging of a corpse is considered
as an aggravating circumstance. if the victim was already
dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed,
this would qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of
his corpse.
Other aggravating circumstances
1. Organized or syndicated crime group
2. Under influence of dangerous drugs
3. Use of unlicensed firearm
DECREE CODIFYING THE LAWS ON
ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE,
DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF
FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES (P.D.
1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 8294)
NOTE: P.D. 1866 (as amended by RA 8294) has been
superseded by the new Firearms law (RA 10591).
Use of unlicensed firearm
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of
unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If an
unlicensed firearm is used to commit a crime other than
homicide or murder, such as direct assault with attempted
homicide, the use of unlicensed firearm is neither an
aggravating nor a separate offense (People v. Walpan
Ladjaamlam, GR 136149-51, September 19, 2000).
Use of unlicensed firearm considered absorbed as an
element of the crime committed
If the use of unlicensed firearm is in furtherance of or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d’etat, such shall
be absorbed as an element of the crimes mentioned (Sec.
1).
Q: If an unlicensed firearm was used to kill a person,
can he be held guilty for a separate offense of illegal
possession of firearms aside from murder or
homicide?
A: No. Where murder or homicide results from the use of
an unlicensed firearm, the crime is no longer qualified
illegal possession, but murder or homicide, as the case
may be. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm
is not considered as a separate crime but shall be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. In view of
the amendments introduced by Republic Act. 8294 to
Presidential Decree no. 1866, separate prosecutions for
homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order.
Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to be
taken as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide
case (People v. Avecilla, G.R. No. 117033, Feb. 15,
2001).
NOTE: Same ruling will be applicable in the new firearms
law. In Section 29 of RA 10591, the use of a loose firearm,
when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable
under the RPC or other special laws, shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. Otherwise, the use or
possession of loose firearms and violation of other penal
law shall be treated as distinct crimes and will thus be
punished separately.
Use of explosives
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the
RPC or special laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices,
which results in the death of any person or persons, the
use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
devices shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance (Sec. 2, RA 8294).
Necessity to present the firearm to consider illegal
possession of firearm as an aggravating
circumstance
It is not necessary to present the firearm before the court
in order for illegal possession of firearm as aggravating
circumstance. The aggravating circumstance of illegal
possession of firearm can be appreciated even though the
firearm used was not recovered. The actual firearm itself
need not be presented if its existence can be proved by
the testimonies of witnesses or by other evidence
presented (People v Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October
11, 2011).
Instances required to be proven in cases of illegal
possession of firearms
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the elements
thereof, viz.:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm; and
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it
does not have the license or permit to possess the same.
The essence of the crime of illegal possession is the
possession, whether actual or constructive, of the subject
firearm, without which there can be no conviction for
illegal possession.
After possession is established by the prosecution, it
would only be a matter of course to determine whether the
accused has a license to possess the firearm. Possession
of any firearm becomes unlawful only if the necessary
permit or license is not first obtained. The absence of
license and legal authority constitutes an essential
ingredient of the offense of illegal possession of firearm
and every ingredient or essential element of an offense
must be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond
reasonable doubt (People v Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476,
October 11, 2011).
Good faith is not a valid defense against prosecution
for illegal possession of firearm
Illegal Possession of Firearm is malum prohibitum.
Illustration: Accused who was apprehended for carrying a
cal. 9mm firearm and ammunitions without the proper
license to possess the same, claimed to be a confidential
agent of the AFP and in that capacity received the said
firearm and ammunitions which is government property
duly licensed to the Intelligence Security Group (ISG) of
the AFP and so could not be licensed under his name.
Although the accused had a Memorandum Receipt and A
Mission Order issued by ISG, whereby he was entrusted
with such firearm and ammunitions which he was
authorized to carry around, he was nevertheless convicted
for the subject violation in as much as a Memorandum
Receipt and Mission Order cannot take the place of a duly
issued firearm license. The accused cannot invoke good
faith as a defense against a prosecution for illegal
possession of firearm, as this is a malum prohibitum
(Sayco v. People, G.R. 159703, March 3, 2008).
Penalty
The use of a loose firearm when inherent in the
commission of a crime punishable by the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. Provided, that if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by
the law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that
prescribed in the preceding sections for illegal possession
of firearms, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms
shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime
charged. Provided further, that if the crime committed with
the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with
maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under
the preceding sections for illegal possession of firearms,
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime punishable
under the RPC or other special laws of which he/she is
found guilty.
NOTE: If the crime is committed by the person without
using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be
considered as a distinct and separate offense (Sec. 29,
R.A. 10591).
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002
(RA 9165)
AS QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary,
a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be
a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the
commission of a crime by an offender, and the application
of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code
shall be applicable (Sec. 25).
Other aggravating circumstances in drug related
cases
1. If the importation or bringing into the Philippines of any
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemicals was done through the use of
diplomatic passport, diplomatic facilities or any other
means involving his/her official status intended to facilitate
the unlawful entry of the same.
2. The sale trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution or transportation of any dangerous and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical transpired
within one hundred (100) meters from school.
3. The drug pusher use minors or mentally incapacitated
individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any
other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical trade.
4. The victim of the offense is a minor or mentally
incapacitated individual or should a dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals
involved in any offense be the proximate cause of the
death of the victim.
5. In case the clandestine laboratory is undertaken or
established under the following circumstances:
a. Any phase of the manufacturing process was
conducted in the presence or with the help of minor/s.
b. Any phase of manufacturing process was established
or undertaken within one hundred (100) meters of a
residential, business, church or school premises.
c. Any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected by
booby traps.
d. Any clandestine laboratory was concealed with
legitimate business operations.
e. Any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer,
public official or foreigner.
6. In case the person uses a minor or a mentally
incapacitated individual to deliver equipment,
instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia use for
dangerous drugs.
7. Any person found possessing any dangerous drug
during a party, or a social gathering or meeting, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2) person.
8. Possession or having under his/her control any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into
the body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or
in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT
Persons exempted from prosecution and punishment
under RA 9165
Any person who:
1. Has violated Section 7 (Employees and Visitors of a
Den, Dive or Resort), Section 11 (Possession of
Dangerous Drugs), Section 12 (Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drug), Section 14 (Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings), Section 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), and
Section 19 (Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs),
Article II of R.A. 9165
2. Voluntarily gives information about any violation of:
a. Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/ or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 4)
b. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 5)
c. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort (Sec. 6)
d. Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals (Sec. 8)
e. Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
(Sec. 10)
f. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings (Sec. 13)
g. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous
Drugs or are Sources Thereof (Sec. 16)
h. The offenses mentioned if committed by a drug
syndicate
i. Leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all
or any of the members thereof
3. Willingly testifies against such persons as described
above Provided, That the following conditions concur:
1. The information and testimony are necessary for the
conviction of the persons described above.
2. Such information and testimony are not yet in the
possession of the State.
3. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on
its material points.
4. The informant or witness has not been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except
when there is no other direct evidence available for the
State other than the information and testimony of said
informant or witness.
5. The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully
comply without delay, any condition or undertaking,
reduced into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as
further consideration for the grant of immunity from
prosecution and punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by
such informant or witness who does not appear to be
most guilty for the offense with reference to which his/her
information or testimony were given: Provided, finally,
That there is no direct evidence available for the State
except for the information and testimony of the said
informant or witness.
NOTE: This applies notwithstanding the provisions of
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991.
Termination of immunity from prosecution and
punishment
The immunity shall not attach should it turn out
subsequently that the information and/or testimony is
false, malicious or made only for the purpose of
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the
persons described in Sec. 33 against whom such
information or testimony is directed. In such case, the
informant or witness shall be subject to prosecution and
the enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously
accorded him under the Law or any other law, decree or
order shall be deemed terminated.
In case the informant or witness under the Law fails or
refuses to testify without just cause, and when lawfully
obliged to do so, or should he/she violate any condition
accompanying such immunity as provided above, his/her
immunity shall be removed and he/she shall be likewise
be subjected to contempt and/or criminal prosecution as
the case may be and the enjoyment of all rights and
benefits previously accorded him under the Law or in any
other law, decree or order shall be deemed terminated
(Sec. 34).
MINOR OFFENDERS
Sec. 66 - An accused who is fifteen (15) years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in
Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165 but not more than eighteen (18)
years of age at the time of when the judgment should
have been promulgated after having been found guilty of
said offense, may be given the benefits of a suspended
sentence, subject to the following conditions:
a) He/she has not been previously convicted of violating
any provisions of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or
any special penal laws;
b) He/she has not been previously committed to a Center
or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; and
c) The Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence
be suspended.
NOTE: If the first-time minor offender violates any of the
conditions of his/her suspended sentence, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board exercising supervision
and rehabilitative surveillance over him, including the rules
and regulations of the Center should confinement be
required, the court shall pronounce judgment of conviction
and he/she shall serve sentence as any other convicted
person (Sec. 69).
Grant of probation or community service in case of a
first-time minor offender
The court may grant probation or community service in
lieu of imprisonment in case of a first-time minor offender.
Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its
discretion, place the accused under probation, even if the
sentence provided under this Act is higher than that
provided under existing law on probation or impose
community service in lieu of imprisonment.
NOTE: If the sentence promulgated by the court requires
imprisonment, the period spent in the Center by the
accused shall be deducted from the sentence to be
served (Sec. 70).
APPLICATION/ NON-APPLICATION OF RPC
PROVISIONS (SEC. 98, R.A. 9165) CF. ART. 10, RPC
RPC applied with respect to special laws
RPC is not intended to supersede special laws. It shall be
supplementary to special penal laws unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary (Art. 10).

Provisions of the RPC not applicable to RA 9165

GR: The provisions of the RPC are not applicable to RA

9165 because the law itself prohibits the application of
RPC to R.A. 9165.

XPN: If the offender is a minor. R.A. 9165 states that if the

offender is a minor and the penalty is life imprisonment to
death, then the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death, adopting therefore the nomenclature of the
penalties under the RPC. By adopting the nomenclature of
the penalties under the RPC, the RPC shall apply, and a
minor would now be entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority (People v. Simon, G.R. No.
93026, July 29, 1994).

Compiled and Edited by:

Midzfar Omar
2017

Philippine Copyright, 2017

by

OMAR BOOK STORE, INC.

ISBN 123-456-78-9123-4