Circumstances which add ignominy to the natural effects of the acts
Broken window, wall, roof, door
People vs Bucale
GR No. 127568, January 28, 2000
Bucale was charged with the crime of rape to his 8yr old step daughter and
convicted of death penalty. One night while her mother was away, she was
awakened when her step father undressed her. She tried to shout for help
but the accused covered her mouth with his hand while the other hand was
pointing a knife on her neck. The accused kissed her and instructed her to
spread her legs apart and then inserted his penis into her vagina. A while
later, the accused pushed his penis towards the direction of her anus. She
felt pain but she could do nothing because of the threat on her life by the
accused. The following morning, she revealed and narrated the sad
experience she suffered in the hand of the accused to her aunt who
occupied the second floor of the house. Her mother was surprised upon
learning that her daughter was raped by his common law husband. She
tried to confront him but the accused denied the accusation. During trial
her mother insisted that the accused was innocent.
Whether or not ignominy is appreciated in the case?
The lower court appreciated ignominy but the court finds the evidence
insufficient to prove that appellant indeed committed sodomy. Ignominy is
defined as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds
disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. During
cross examination complainant claimed that the accused merely “pushed
his penis towards (her) anus”, not that he actually inserted his sex organ
therein. The complainant had difficulty in moving her bowels could have
just as well been the result of the vaginal, rather than anal, intercourse.
Aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty to be imposed must be
proved with equal certainty and clearness as that which establishes the
commission of the act charged as the criminal offense.
Through unlawful entry
With the aid of persons under 15 years of age, by means of vehicles
motorized watercraft, airship or other similar means
People vs Oco
GR No. 137370-71, September 29, 2003
Accused was charged guilty of beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of
murder and frustrated murder and was convicted of death penalty. Accused
was riding a motorcycle together his co-accused when they started
shooting at the victims using an unlicensed firearm. The victims are riding
their motorcycle when a SUV overtook them. They slowed down, then two
motorcycles came on their way one of which started shooting at them. One
of the victim survived but his companion did not make it.
Whether or not the use of motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance is
appreciated in the case?
Yes, the generic circumstance of use of motor vehicle is present. The
appellant and his companions used motor bicycles in going to the place of
the crime, in carrying away the effects of it, and in facilitating their escape.
People vs Bongalon
GR No. 125025, January 23, 2002
The accused was convicted of death for violating RA 6425, Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. The accused was cleaning his house when his brother
arrived and told him to return the sega tapes he borrowed from their friend.
As the accused had previously planned to take his then 4-yr old son to Star
City, he decided to return the sega tapes to his friend. On their way to his
friend on board his car, NARCOM agents intercepted him. The firearms
were pointed at the car he was driving. The accused and his companions
were taken to Camp Papa for investigation. When told that he was carrying
shabu in his car, he asked if he could see the substance. Allegedly, the
NARCOM agents refused. The police then searched his house after
investigation but was negative of the substance. During trial, accused
denied of the accusation against him.
Whether or not the use of motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance is
appreciated in the case?
Yes, the crime, according to the information, was committed with the
aggravating circumstance of us of motor vehicle. It has been established
that the appellant used a car in going to their meeting place and to transport
the subject substance thus facilitating the commission of the crime.
Cruelty
People vs Lucas
GR No. 80102, January 22, 1990
Lucas was charged of the heinous crime of rape. It was committed by a
father against his own 13-yr old daughter. The victim was working as a
housemaid in Manila when his father fetched her, rode a jeepney and was
then brought to a dark room where her father tied both her hands and feet
to a bed, undressed her, lighted a cigarette and burnt her face with it,
kissed her, fondled her private parts, and finally, pointing a knife
approximately 8-inches long at her neck, consummated the sexual act. All
throughout the forced sexual intercourse, appellant was laughing. He
threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident to anyone. Despite of the
threat from his father, the victim told his paternal grandfather of the
incident. Six months after the incident, the victim reported the incident to
the police. During trial the accused used an alibi as a defense but he never
testified to refute the accusations against him and support his defense.
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of cruelty is appreciated in
the case?
Yes, there is cruelty when the offender enjoys and delights in making his
victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in
the consummation of the offense. Cruelty is present where the appellant
tied the victim to a bed, burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping
her and laughed as he did all these.
Others
Catalina Security Agency vs Gonzales-Decano
GR No. 149039, May 27, 2004
This is a review of the decision on the case of People vs Negrillo of which
the appellant Negrillo was guilty of the crime of murder with the use of an
unlicensed firearm. In the said criminal case, the trial court ordered the
confiscation of the firearm used in the commission of the offense in favor
of the government. Negrillo had a heated argument with Mercado because
the latter wanted to bring home an electric line extension. Negrillo
objected to it since the line belonged to NAPOCOR. During trial Negrillo
said that Mercado pointed his service firearm at him, a shotgun, and was
trembling with fear. Fearing that Mercado could shoot him first, he first
fired at Mercado 3 times that he shot him accidentally and that is was a self
defense because he has no intention of killing him. But witnesses testified
that Mercado was outside the guard house, sitting, when Negrillo shot him
3 times with his .38 caliber pistol but the third shot to his head was not
successful.
Whether or not a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present in the
case?
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statue but No, the confiscation of the firearm is not only contrary to Art 45 of the
in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know. RPC, it also runs afoul the constitutional guaranty of due process since
The information must be alleged, specify or enumerate the attendant petitioner was never indicted nor even made party in the case. The OSG
circumstances mentioned in the law to qualify the offense. In the present concludes that there are no grounds, legal or logical, to justify the decision
case, the information alleged that the circumstance of treachery attended of the respondent judge directing the confiscation of petitioner’s firearm
the commission of the crime which would qualify the killing to murder. after the completion of appellant’s trial and his conviction. We are
Treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which therefore, oblige to restore its possession to petitioner.
renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason
of the suddenness and severity of the attack. With the heated argument
of Negrillo and Mercado, we cannot conclude in these circumstances that
the attack on the victim, was sudden or unexpected. On this point, we are
not persuaded that treachery attended Mercado’s killing. Absent this
qualifying circumstance, the proper offense for which the appellant is
liable is only homicide not murder. but was the homicide aggravated by
the case of an unlicensed firearm? According to PAO, the firearm was duly
licensed to the security agency that employed Negrillo. Hence, it is not
correct to say that the gun used by appellant is unlicensed. RA 8294 states
that a firearm used in an unauthorized manner shall be considered an
aggravating circumstance. We are in agreement that even if the firearm
used was properly licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by
Negrillo aggravated the offense. Thus the offense committed is homicide,
aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm.

Finally, GR No. 149039. It is undisputed the firearm used by Negrillo in

shooting Mercado is duly licensed to and owned by Catalina Security
Agency. The trail court ordered the confiscation of said firearm in favor of
the government. But the agency filed a motion seeking reversal of the
decision contending that although that the firearm was illegally used, it is
not illegal per se, or better said, ownership and possession thereof by
petitioner Catalina is not unlawful. Petitioner stresses that the agency had
no knowledge nor participation in appellant’s shooting of the victim.

Whether or not RTC committed a reversible error when it ordered the

confiscation of the firearm in favor of the government.