Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Par. 4 Art.

13 – sufficient provocation or threat on part of offended party immediately preceded the act

People vs. Ignas,

Par. 5 Art. 13 – immediate vindication of a grave offense, his spouse, desc, asc, etc
. Bacbac vs. People 532 SCRA 557, September 2007 -

FACTS: December 23, 1990 - Hernani Quidato (the victim) was at a dance hall in the company of Eduardo Selibio (Eduardo)
and Melchor Selibio (Melchor). And so were Jonathan Bacabac (Jonathan) and Edzel Talanquines (Edzel). Jonathan and
Edzel left the dance hall. Not long after, the victim and his companions also left and on their way home, they encountered
Jonathan and Edzel. It appears that the two groups then and there figured in a misunderstanding. On his way home, Jesus
Delfin Rosadio (Jesus), who was also at the dance hall, noticed a commotion. He soon saw that Melchor was "hugging"
Edzel, and later "tying" Jonathan "with his hands." Still later, he saw the victim hit Edzel with a "stick." And then Jesus left
and went to Edzel’s residence to report to his father what he had witnessed In the meantime, Edzel and Jonathan
managed to flee.

The victim and his companions thereafter headed for home in the course of which they met Pat. Ricardo Bacabac
(herein petitioner), together with Edzel and Jonathan who are his nephews, and Edzel's father, Jose, his mother, and
two sisters. Petitioner and Jose were carrying M-16 armalites, while Jonathan and Edzel were carrying a piece of
wood and a revolver, respectively. Jesus thereupon pointed to the victim and his companions as the ones who had
manhandled Jonathan and Edzel. The victim apologized, explaining that he and his companions mistook Jonathan and
Edzel for other persons. Petitioner, at that instant, fired his armalite into the air, while Jose fired his armalite. Quidato
died, Eduardo died 2 hours later , Jonathan was also hit in the thigh and Melchor escaped. Trial court and CA
convicted petitioner of 2 counts of murder. Petitioner contends that he should be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense

ISSUE: Whether or not there’s mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense?

RULING: No, Art. 13, par. 5 provides that the act should “committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree."

SC said that: 1. The offense committed on Edzel was "hitting" his ear with a stick (according to Jesus), a bamboo pole
(according to Edzel). By Edzel's own clarification, "[he] was hit at [his] ear, not on [his] head." That act would certainly
not be classified as "grave offense."

2. Edzel is petitioner's nephew, hence, not a relative by affinity "within the same degree" contemplated in Article 13,
Par. 5
Par. 6 Art. 13 passion or obfuscation
3. People vs. Cabalhin, 231 SCRA 486 March 28, 1994 -

FACTS: Cabalhin was convicted by the RTC of parricide, homicide, and frustrated homicide for, respectively, killing his wife,
killing his wife’s paramour, and almost killing the paramour’s mother who survived. Respondent claims that he caught his wife
and her paramour in the act of sexual intercourse while in the paramour’s house (he claims he saw her with her legs apart and
the man on top of her), then stabbed the both of them and then stabbed the paramour’s mother when she tried to stop him.
On appeal, Respondent claims that the exceptional circumstances of Article 247 should apply to him. The RTC, however, greatly
considered the testimony of the prosection witness, the barangay tanod who testified that when he saw the wife and the
paramour on that day, all bloodied, the wife was fully dressed while the paramour was wearing khaki pants and no shirt.
ISSUE: A) Whether or not Article 247 should apply in the respondent? B) Whether or not Article 13 par. 6 should apply to the
respondent?
HELD: A.) No. Decision affirmed. Guilty of parricide, homicide and frustrated homicide. The principal question is whether or not
appellant killed his wife and her paramour in the act of committing the sexual act or immediately thereafter. Findings of fact of
the trial courts are given great weight on appeal, and the Court finds that there is no reversible error committed by the trial
court in appreciating the barangay tanod’s testimony.
Under Article 247, the killing of the wife by the husband (or vice versa) is justified if the husband kills her while engaged in
sexual intercourse with another man or immediately thereafter. Clearly, in the present case, Respondent failed to prove that he
killed them while in the act or immediately after. He cannot invoke Article 247; hence he is guilty of parricide for killing his wife,
homicide for killing her paramour, and frustrated homicide for the paramour’s mother.
B) Yes. The trial court ruled that the appellant was entitled to two (2) mitigating circumstances; the first, for having acted upon
an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. The records show that on 22 February 1987
appellant went to the house of the Saldivia family after being informed that he would find there his wife (Marianita) together
with her alleged paramour, Rolito Saldivia. The stabbing incident happened, according to the trial court, because appellant
acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obsfuscation.
People vs. Layson et al. 30 SCRA 92 October 31, 1969 - OLASIMAN
Par. 6 Art. 13 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.

FACTS: These four accused Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces stabbed Regino Gasang to death.
They were all inmates of the Davao Penal Colony. Gasang died shortly after being brought to the prison hospital.

Layson, Ragub and Fugoso admitted that they killed Gasang because the latter urinated on their coffee cups a number of times.
Garces stated that he killed Gasang because the latter spat on him a week before. The four plotted to kill Gasang a few days
prior to the actual slaying.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of produced passion or obfuscation should be considered in this case?

RULING: No. The Court rejected the recommendation of the Solicitor General that the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation be considered in favor of all the accused.

Here, three of the accused admitted that they harbored ill-feeling against Gasang because the latter urinated on their coffee
cups several times, all these taking place at least ten days before the actual slaying. Gasang spat on Garces a week before the
day of the killing. All of the accused plotted to kill. In the light of these circumstances, it is evident that sufficient time had
elapsed during which the accused regained their equanimity. They moved their evil scheme forward to consummation after
obtaining weapons from their fellow inmates whose aid they had solicited. The afore narrated circumstances negate the
presence of passion and obfuscation; upon the contrary, they prove the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.
People vs. Marasigan 70 Phil. 583 - YAPCHIONGCO Par. 7 Art. 13 That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
PEOPLE vs. MARASIGAN

FACTS: In March 1927, there was a feast at the house of certain Agapito de Silva in Sariaya, Tayabas. Among those present was
the accused, Fermin Marasigan and the deceased, Pedro de Chaves. De Chaves offered Marasigan a cup of wine but the latter
declined saying that he is not into the habit of drinking and he asked to be excused, took his hat and left. While yet on the
staircase, opened his penknife and held it in his hand while leaving the house, and in the street picked up a club from the
ground. A few moments later de Chaves followed. As soon as de Chaves reached the Marasigan they prepared for combat and
immediately Marasigan beat the de Chaves' face with the club he carried. During the struggle, Marasigan stabbed de Chaves
several times with his penknife. De Chaves has taken a few steps and he fell to the ground dead.

ISSUE: W/N Marasigan acted in self-defense?

HELD: Marasigan cannot set up the plea of self-defense. In the case of United States vs. Navarro (7 Phil., 713), this Supreme
Court said that, ‘... the aggression or attack could not be considered as one of the elements or requisites of self-defense,
because in fight arranged under agreement, like the one that has taken place, the result of the provocation and an accepted
challenge, the aggression is reciprocal and legitimate as between two contending parties, although the same cannot be
qualified as a duel for the reason that the conditions and elements necessary to constitute this crime are not present. And in the
case of United States vs. Cortes (36 Phil., 837), this court confirmed that ruling, saying that, ‘the right of lawful self-defense
cannot validly be set up in behalf of a person who voluntarily exposes his person to the consequences of a hand struggle with his
adversary in which, for the reason that each of the combatants has no other intention than to injure the other, the first act of
force, came from whichever of the two it may, cannot be held but to be an incident of the fight itself and in nowise whatever as
an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense.’

De Vera vs. De Vera, 58 SCRA 506 April 7, 2009 – par 7. Art 13 – voluntary surrender

FACTS: Petitioner Rosario de Vera sued her spouse Geren de Vera and Josephine Juliano for bigamy. Rosario de Vera and Geren
de Vera were rightfully married under the law. Despite this fact Geren de Vera wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously contracted a
second marriage with Josephine Juliano. Josephine Juliano knew of the fact that Geren and Rosario were still married and the
previous marriage of Geren was still subsisting. During arraignment Geren pleaded guilty, on April 8, 2015 he filed a Motion to
withdraw his plea in order to prove the mitigating circumstance of “voluntary surrender” were present. But the petitioner
contended this saying that not all the elements of voluntary surrender were present.

The RTC ruled that Geren was guilty of the crime of bigamy and the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty and voluntary
surrender were appreciated to his case. Petitioner filed for partial reconsideration but was denied by the RTC. She then filed a
certiorari with the CA assailing the decision of the RTC but was likewise denied, Hence this Petition for Review on Certiorari was
filed with The Court.

ISSUE: W/N the lower courts erred in applying the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in the case?

RULING: NO. The Court held that the lower courts correctly applied the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. They
stated that “For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: 1) the offender has not been
actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and 3) the surrender was
voluntary. In the case at bar upon the issuance of a warrant of arrest, respondent Geren surrendered to the court and filed for a
reduction of bail. These instances shows the voluntariness of his surrender, even before the issuance and implementation of
the warrant of arrest, Respondent already gave himself up, acknowledging his culpability. Add to the fact that respondent
pleaded guilty during this arraignment.
People vs. Pinca, 318 SCRA 270, November 17, 1999 – voluntary surrender

On January 16, 1995 Joel Pinca (accused) after having some drinks with Gerry Abenir (witness) at a bakery, then rode a
Passenger motorcycle (habal habal) together with Abenir to alight at Del carmen, bohol and Dorol, bohol. Nearing their first
stop which is the home of the witness, accused spotted Conrado Angcahan (victim) walking in an unsteady manner. Both of
them got down from the motorcycle then and their, during which accused told the witness that the person walking in the
unsteady manner was the guy who splashed some liquor on him earlier, and that he would wait for him to get near. The
accused got a piece of wood, then once the victim was near enough proceeded to hit him in the head rendering the victim
unconscious. The head trauma caused by the piece of wood eventually resulted in the death of the victim. On May 22, 1995 an
information was submitted accusing Joel Pinca of murder, and on January 8, 1997 the court found the accused to be guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder as qualified by treachery. He is hereby sentenced to be punished with reclusion perpetua
to death. The case was elevated to the SC for automatic review, in view of the death sentence.

ISSUE/S
1. W/N: The trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance

Held. No. According to appellant himself, when the police came to his house the morning after the incident, he completely
denied any knowledge of the murder incident. Appellant's actions after the incident are not marks of voluntary surrender.
Denying to the police any personal knowledge of the crime, he even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident by
going to Tagbilaran City. It was only when he learned that he had become a suspect and that the police were looking for him
even in Tagbilaran that he finally went to the police station, but only "to clear his name." Such acts do not show any intent to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities.

8. People vs. Rebucan 654 SCRA 726 July 27, 2011 – art 14 aggrevating
On November 6, 2002, in Carigara, Leyte, accused Rosendo Rebucan unlawfully assaulted and wounded 65-year old Felipe
Lagera and his one-year old grandson Ranil Lagera-Tagpis Jr. with a bolo that the accused had provided himself for the purpose.
Felipe sustained three hacking wounds where he suffered hypovolemic shock and massive blood loss due to the multiple
hackings. Ranil sustained a hacking wound at the fronto-temporal area with a skull fracture which led to his instantaneous
death.

Renerio Arminal, a human rights officer and the punong barangay, testified that on November 6, 2002, the accused-appellant
surrendered to him. The latter came to him alone and told him that he fought with Felipe Lagera. Accused-appellant was
apparently avenging his wife’s sexual molestation by Felipe and his son.

Accused Rebucan was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double murder charged under the information and
sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death. The manner by which the accused adopted in killing the victim, Felipe
Lagera, and Ramil Tagpis, Jr. was a premeditated decision and executed with treachery. The accused-appellant then filed a
Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
DWELLING, ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND MINORITY? And is there treachery?

HELD: The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, dwelling, minority and
intoxication. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the
latter.60 On the other hand, dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the
instant case considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information.

There was treachery. Carmela firmly and categorically pointed to the accused-appellant as the person who entered the house
of Felipe. She clearly stated that the attack was not preceded by any fight or altercation between the accused-appellant and
Felipe. Without any provocation, the accused-appellant suddenly delivered fatal hacking blows to Felipe. The abruptness of the
unexpected assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of any opportunity to repel the attack and retaliate. As Felipe
was carrying his grandson Ranil, the child unfortunately suffered the same fatal end as that of his grandfather. In the killing of
Ranil, the trial court likewise correctly appreciated the existence of treachery. The said circumstance may be properly
considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it.53
Furthermore, the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of assault is not shown. For the weakness of
the victim due to his tender years results in the absence of any danger to the accused.54
People vs. Tac-an, 182 SCRA 601, February 26, 1990 – par 2, 14 – crime committed insult to public authorities

FACTS: Renato Tac-an (respondent) and Francis Ernest Escano III (deceased) were classmates in Divine Word College of
Tagbilaran and in their third year in high school. The respondent and the deceased were close friends and are in a same gang:
Bronx gang, until the deceased withdrew from the gang and their friendship was going sour. At about 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of 14 December 1984, the respondent entered Room 15 of the high school building to attend his English III class.
While the English III class was still going on, the respondent slipped out of the classroom and went home to get a gun. He was
back at the classroom approximately fifteen (15) minutes later.Their Mathematics class was just starting when the respondent
when the respondent barge in and took his gun out and looked for the deceased. Upon seeing the deceased, he shot four times
before hitting him. The respondent then went out of Room 15. Mr. Pablo Baluma, apparently unaware that it was him who shot
the deceased, approached him to help the deceased as he was still alive inside the room. Respondent re-entered Room 15,
closed the door behind him and aimed at the chest of the deceased and fired once more. The respondent proceeded to the
ground floor and entered the faculty room. There, he found some teachers and students and held them as hostages. After some
time, a team of Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Larino Lazo arrived and surrounded the faculty room. The
respondent's brother and father volunteered to persuade him to give up. The respondent gave the gun to his brother and Capt.
Lazo took the gun from him and went to arrest the respondent. Some teachers and students went to rescue the deceased and
rushed him to Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital. He was pronounced dead upon arrival. The respondent was convicted of
qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition in Criminal Case No. 4007 and of murder in Criminal Case No. 4012 and
imposing upon him the penalty of death in both cases.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed was in contempt or with insult to the public authorities?

RULING: No. The Supreme Court finds no reason to disagree with the decision of the trial court that the respondent killed the
deceased under the circumstances and in the manner the witnesses described but the court erred in finding the presence of a
generic aggravating circumstance as it was held by the trial court that the case at bar is done “in contempt of or with insult to
public authorities since under Republic Act 1978, as amended, a teacher of a public or private school is considered a person in
authority. But Article 152(3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 299,
provides as follows:

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, 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, shall be
deemed persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No. 299, September 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg.
873, June 12, 1985).

Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a
"person in authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault
upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the
Revised Penal Code. A penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called for by the ordinary
meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do not believe that a teacher or
professor of a public or recognized private school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
People vs. Collado, et al., 196 SCRA 519, April 30, 1991 – art 14 par 3, act commited with insult or disregard of the resoect on
account of rank age or sex, or committed in dweling and no provocation

FACTS: On January 21, 1985, Mario Marasigan was at the coconut plantation he was tending which was about 100 meters from
the road. He was cutting trees which he would use as posts for his house. He climbed up a tall madre de cacao tree and after he
had cut the branch. He saw the accused, Felix Collado and Fernando Collado standing on either end of the pathway as if waiting
for somebody. He also saw Crisanto Lara and Romeo Gloriani at the middle of the pathway about 40 meters away from him.
Crisanto was holding a piece of wood and Romeo was hiding behind a tree. After a few minutes, he saw Maria Regal, mother in
law of Mario Marasigan, walking along the highway at a distance of more or less 40 meters. As she was walking suddenly
Crisanto struck her on the face with a piece of wood and she fell on the ground. Afterwards Romeo dragged her and pulled out
his knife and stabbed her and pulled out her skirt and cut the cord tied around her waist where she kept her money. Once they
took the money all of the accused left the scene. Mario Marasigan did not scream or shout for what happened for he is
surprised that his Uncle, Crisanto Lara, stabbed her Mother-in-law. After 15 days of silence he reported it to the Police. In April
of 1985, Fernando Collado was apprehended at the Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna. Raymundo T. Matiola, a policeman and
a resident of Pila, Laguna took the sworn statement (Exhibit C) of Fernando Collado on April 8, 1985 that there were four who
were responsible for the slaying and robbing of Maria Regay, namely: one alias Elee, Fernando Collado, Crisanto Lara and
Loriana, whose first name he did not remember

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance Art 14, Par 3, be appreciated?

RULING: No, the aggravating circumstance should not be appreciated. The trial court erred when it appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of disregard of age and sex. Disregard of the respect due the offended party by reason of his rank, age or sex
may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or
disrespect shown to rank, age or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property.
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the
robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.

11. People vs. Bagsit GR No. 148877, August 19, 2003 - Dwelling
FACTS: The witness and his sister were watching television at 8pm in the evening. When he looked at the window, he saw
Bagsit pointing a gun at his father, who was closing the front door of their house. Thereafter, he heard a gunshot and saw his
father falling to the cement floor. Bagsit is now being prosecuted for murder.

ISSUE: Whether dwelling may be appreciated in the case at bar?

RULING: Yes. Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is likewise aggravating. The triggerman (Bagsit) showed
greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the latter’s own house when he could have
very well committed the crime without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victim’s home. He who goes to another’s
house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to be
considered, 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 abode, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from the outside.
People vs. Uycoque, et al., 246 SCRA 769, July 31, 1995 – dwelling

Accused-appellant Jose Villanueva was an investigator at Police Station No. 5 at the time of the incident. He had been a
policeman for almost twenty (20) years. Admittedly, before the incident, bad blood existed between him and the victim.
Accused-appellant and his brother-in-law, Carlo Uycoque, reside inside the Department of Public Works and Highways
Compound in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila.The victim, Lucas Flores, was a former member of the Philippine Marines, Armed Forces
of the Philippines. After his separation from the service, he worked as a security guard. At the time of his death, he was
a barangay tanod at Barangay No. 905, Zone III, Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila.On May 2, 1991, at around 9:30 P.M., Lucas and his
wife, Francisca Flores, were resting in their house situated inside the DPWH Compound, in Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. They heard
someone knocking at the door. Lucas stood up and opened the door. Suddenly, someone grabbed Lucas, poked a gun at him,
and forced him out of the house. Immediately thereafter, Francisca heard two (2) successive gunshots, followed by another
volley of gunshots.4Francisca rushed to her husband's succor. However, she was too late. She found him lying prostrate on the
ground. He had been shot. According to Francisca, she saw accused-appellant Jose Villanueva and two (2) other suspects
surrounding her fallen husband. The three (3) men were armed with guns.5Instinctively, Francisca embraced Lucas. Irked,
accused-appellant shoved her aside and in the process Lucas was released from her hold. Accused-appellant then poked his gun
at her and threatened: "Kung gusto mo, ikaw ang isusunod ko!" Francisca quipped: "Iputok mo!" 6 Thereafter, she sought help
from her neighbors. Accused-appellant and his cohorts fled.

Wheter or not dwelling is appreciated

Held: yes The aggravating circumstance of dwelling also attended the commission of the crime even if the victim was killed
outside his residence. A person's abode is regarded as a sanctuary which should be respected by everybody. Here, while the
victim was resting in the comfort of his home, accused-appellant and his cohort(s) forcibly led him (the victim) out of his house
shortly before he was shot to death. At that point, the aggression had begun, although it ended outside the victim's house. An
act performed cannot be divided or its unity be broken up, when the offender began the aggression in the dwelling of the
offended party and ended it in the street or outside said dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house
and killed just beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein. 31

People v. Molina 311 S 517, July 28, 1999 - dwelling

FACTS: On July 14, 1995, 10 o’clock in the evening, Domingo Flores was asleep in his house in Pangasinan. Accused Romeo
Molina entered into his house and hitting him in the head with a stone and later stabbing Domingo in the neck with a knife, this
incident was witnessed by Domingo’s daughter Melanie, she identified the accused because there was a lamp near the victim.
After the incident she called for help to her grandfather Eufrosinio Flores. Before dying, Domingo made a dying declaration to
his father Eufrisinio that the one who stabbed him is Romeo. Accused interposed the defense of alibi, he alleged that stayed in
the hospital waiting area up to eleven oclock in the evening of July 14, 1995 until a nursing attendant in the said hospital,
Alejandro Duyag, took pity on him and brought him to the latters house. Facts also show that before the incident took
place, he met the victim Domingo Flores and Orlando Fernandez. Suddenly and without any provocation, the two who
appeared drunk at the time, took turns mauling him.

ISSUE: Whether the aggravating circumstances of dwelling may be appreciated in this case?

RULING: Yes. The generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly appreciated considering that Molina purposely
entered the victims abode with the intention to kill him. Article 14 (5) of the Revised Penal Code provides that where the crime
was committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given any provocation, the same is considered an
aggravating circumstance. For dwelling to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, there must have been no provocation
on the part of the victim. The provocation contemplated here is one that is sufficient and immediate to the commission of the
crime. In the case at bar it was not immediate to the commission of the crime because the killing in the victim’s house occurred
at least six hours after the accused mauling.
People vs. Badilla, 185 SCRA 554, May 21, 1990 - dwelling

FACTS: Nestora Horohoro is currently staying in the house of Praxedes Quidang. On July 18, 1984, while Praxedes Quidant was
in Manila, Danilo Badilla went to the house of Quidang to borrow the cassette recorder from Nestora Horohoro. When
Horohoro agreed, Badilla went to Champion Enterprises to pledge the radio cassette recorder to Joseph Lim for 500 pesos. Lim
asked to bring the recorder and go back to the store for him to examine first the item. Badilla went back to Horohoro. He first
had lunch together with Horohoro and her niece, Ruth Torrefranca. After Torrefranca went to school and Horohoro was
trimming grasses with a bolo, he told Horohoro that he is leaving and will bring the radio cassette recorder but Horohoro
refused. He went near Horohoro but was pushed by her. Horohoro shouted and Badilla asked her to not to shout but Horohoro
kept on shouting. Badilla tried to cover her mouth but she bit him. When he saw his finger is bleeding, he held his knife and
stabbed Horohoro several times. Because Badilla thought Horohoro was already dead, he brought the rota air electric fan and
the radio cassette recorder and proceeded to Champion Enterprises. At the Champion Enterprises, when he approached Joseph
Lim to sell the stolen items, he was approached by two policemen who are in plain clothing and they asked Badilla how much
the items cost. Apparently, Joseph Lim heard from the radio cassette recorder and a rota electric fan was stolen from a crime
scene. So before Badilla arrived, Lim already called the police. The policemen introduced themselves as policemen and invited
him for questioning. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty and never withdrew his plea of guilt.

ISSUE: Whetherthe aggravating circumstances of treachery, obvious ungratefulness, and dwelling can be appreciated in this
case?
RULING: YES. Dwelling is also considered as an aggravating circumstance in this case. The appellant cites a number of cases
decided in the 1940's and 50's ruling that for the circumstance of dwelling to be established, the house in which the offense is
committed must belong to the victim or at least be her permanent dwelling.

People v. Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206, 219 [1985] states:


Anent appellant's submission that the trial court erred in considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance, we
find the same bereft of any legal support. There is no dispute that the place where the crimes herein involved were
committed is the house of Consolacion Grulla. It is there where she lives With her daughter, Natividad Grulla (the
other victim) and where Salvacion Grulla was temporarily staying in order to escape from the brutalities of the
appellant brought about by the latter's jealousy. The fact that Salvacion's stay in the said place may be considered as
a temporary sojourn adds no validity to appellant's stance on this point.

Dwelling, then, may mean temporary dwelling Applying the above ruling, we agree with the trial court that dwelling is an
aggravating circumstance even though the victim was not the owner of the house where the crime was committed. She was
living in that house with her niece. The owner was in Manila.

People vs. Caliso 58 Phil. 283, July 1, 1933 – abuse of confidence par 4
Magdalena Caliso was a servant to Spouses Emilio and Flora Esmeralda. On one occasion, Emilio came home to find a stranger
hiding under his bed. When confronted, the man claimed he was not a thief, but Magdalena’s lover and thereafter was let go.
However, upon learning from her husband, Flora didn’t take the incident lightly. She reprimanded, berated, and insulted
Magdalena continuously throughout that fateful day. While they were sleeping, the spouses woke to the sound of their 9-
month old son, Emilio Jr., crying in pain. They discovered him crying in pain, with white eyes, and swollen lips. The spouses
perceived that he has ingested acetic acid based on the smell of his breath. Emilio Jr. passed away after being brought to the
hospital. Magdalena was charged with murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of grave abuse of confidence was present.

RULING: Yes, the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence can be appreciated. Acting on impulse and outburst in
exacting her revenge, Magdalena, the family’s domestic servant, chose Emilio Jr, a defenseless 9-month old baby. Taking
advantage when everyone else is already asleep in the residence, then and there administered acetic acid to him.
People vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174, January 30, 1975 – abuse of confidence
An information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, B. Jose Castillo against (1) Benjamin Ong y Kho, (2) Bienvenido Quintos
y Sumaljag (3) Fernando Tan, alias "Oscar Tan," and (4) Baldomero Ambrosio alias "Val", the latter two being then at large. On
or about April 23 to April 24, 1971, inclusive, in the municipality of Parañaque, the above-named accused, being then private
individuals, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
with treachery and known premeditation and for the purpose of killing one Henry Chua and thereafter extorting money from
his family through the use of a ransom note, kidnap(ped) and carry(ied) away said Henry Chua, initially by means of a friendly
gesture and later through the use of force, in an automobile, and later after having taken him to an uninhabited place in
Caloocan City, with the use of force detained him (Henry Chua) and kill(ed) him in the following manner to wit: The accused
after gagging and tying up Henry Chua and repeatedly threatening him with death, assured him that if he would write and sign
a ransom note for the payment by his family of the sum of $50,000.00 (US), he would not be killed and would be released upon
receipt of the ransom money, but after said Henry Chua agreed and did execute such a ransom note, he was again gagged and
tied up by the accused, and thereafter stabbed in the abdominal region several times with an icepick, inflicting upon him (Henry
Chua) mortal wounds on his vital organs, which directly caused his death.

ISSUE: Whether there was aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence?

RULING: NO, in the case of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence (abuso de confianza), it appears that the lower
court wrongly appreciated this circumstance. In order for this circumstance to obtain, it is necessary that there be a relation of
trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed, and that the accused made
use of such relation to commit the crime. It is essential too that the confidence be a means of facilitating the commission of the
crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence.

Nowhere in the records does it appear that Henry Chua reposed confidence upon the person of Benjamin Ong. If any, Henry
Chua was simply not afraid of Benjamin Ong, having told and bragged to the latter about his violent exploits in the past and
threatened him with bodily harm in case of failure to pay. He knew that he was far stronger than Benjamin Ong in terms of
influence and money. He thought that Benjamin Ong would fear him. The fact that Henry Chua invited Ong for nightclubbing
that fatal evening and accommodated him in his car on their way home from the nightclub does not mean that Henry Chua had
confidence in him. There was no special relation of confidence between them. He knew that Benjamin owed him a substantial
amount and that its settlement had long been overdue which fact irritated him very much. Benjamin Ong and Henry Chua were
together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. It was simply because Benjamin Ong
had some accounts to settle with him.

People v. Palon 127 SCRA 529 Feb. 20, 1984 - nocturnity

FACTS: Accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentencing
him to death before the Circuit Criminal Court, Fifth Judicial District. At 9PM on the evening of June 1970, as the victim and his
fellow tricycle drivers take shelter from the rain in Banga, Plaridel, Bulacan, the accused and his companion approached the
victim in order to hire his tricycle. Accused and his companion then proceeded to their destination in Tabang, Plaridel, Bulacan.
Upon reaching Sabana of Tabang, Plaridel, the accused and his companion ‘repeatedly’ stabbed said owner and driver of the
tricycle, and forcibly took the vehicle from his possession and loaded said victim in the said vehicle. The accused then drove the
tricycle with the victim and his companion to Plaridel, Bulacan, and upon reaching Sta. Rita, Guiguinto, Bulacan, the victim
kicked the handlebar of the vehicle as the latter saw people by the roadside and causing the tricycle to bump a post. A
policeman near the scene saw the accident and approached the crashed vehicle. While the policeman is walking to the scene,
he saw a person run away to the darkness and at the same time heard and saw the victim near the tricycle pleading for his help
and telling him that he was stabbed by the person who ran away and another who was near the tricycle. He immediately
approached the accused, the other fellow pointed to by the victim and searched him for weapon finding a balisong about half
meter away from him. Said policeman sought the help of other people in bringing accused to the Guiguinto municipal building
and the victim was brought to the hospital for treatment, and then to a hospital in Manila, where he died shortly after.

ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity should be appreciated

RULING: YES. There are two tests of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is
aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the crime and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it was purposely sought for by the offender. The two are to be applied in the alternative. Hence, even if accused-
appellant Palon and Epifanio Flores did not purposely and specifically seek to commit the felony of robbery with homicide in the
evening of June 1, 1970, nocturnity may still be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance since the same undeniably
facilitated the commission of the preconceived crime.
Pp. v. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35, January 4, 1994 – par 6, uninhabited place

That on or about the 9th day of October, 1983, in the (sic) sitio Pinaductan, barangay San Juan, municipality of Bacon, province
of Sorsogon, the said accused moved by hatred and jealousy with evident premeditation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill armed with a sharp pointed instrument, assault, attack, and inflict physical injuries
on the vagina of one Norma Desalisa y Dioneda with whom he was united in lawful wedlock and who was pregnant for about
five (5) months, and thereafter with the use of rope hang her to a jackfruit tree causing her death and that of her fetus, to the
damage and prejudice of her legal heirs. That in the commission of the offense there exist the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and uninhabited place which facilitated the commission of the offense, and evident premeditation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Emmanuel Desalisa is guilty of the crime of Parricide aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
uninhabited place, and evident premeditation.

RULING:.Yes, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not
by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the place of commission, there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and many fruit
trees and shrubs obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to receive any
assistance. At any rate, in the imposition of the proper penalty we shall disregard the presence of this aggravating
circumstance.

People vs. Abdul, et al., 310 SCRA 246, July 13, 1999 – par 6, band more than 3 armed men

On or about the 19th day of August, 1988, at Langil Island, Municipality of Tuburan, Province of Basilan, Philippines, the Minya
Abdul, armed with assorted high powered firearms, conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one with the
other, with treachery and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
assault, attack and shoot at the group of persons composed of Abraham Annudin, Annih Tanjing, Abdulbaser Tanjiri, Idil Sahirul
and Suri Jannuh with their firearms, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds upon their bodies which caused the death of Abraham
Annudin and Annih Tanjing while the three other companions were mortally wounded. That, taking advantage that the two
were mortally wounded, the said accused, took, stole and carried away two (2) M-14 rifles valued at P60,000.00; One (1) M-203
grenade launcher valued at P40,000.00; and One (1) wrist watch and jewelries valued at P5,000.00, or the total amount of
P105,000.00, Philippine currency, all belonging to the victims.

ISSUE: Whether the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of band attendant.

RULING: No. The Supreme Court does not agree with RTC’s reasoning. An offense is deemed committed by a band when more
than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission thereof. This presupposes that from the onset four
of the malefactors were already armed in order to facilitate the commission of the crime. In the present case, only two of the
five malefactors were armed at the start of the commission of the offense. At any rate, even assuming that the aggravating
circumstance of band was attendant in the commission of the crime, it is absorbed by treachery.
People vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394, January 26, 1989 - Band

In the evening of May 7, 1972, Severino Perito, Felicito Mediona and Cipriano Manuel went to Villaruel Street, Pasay City, on
the occasion of the local community fiesta as quests of Baltazar Manuel, a cousin of Cipriano. At about 11:30 in the evening of
the same date when the three were on their way home, upon reaching the corner of Villaruel and Harrison Streets, someone
threw a big rock at the group. The stone hit Perito on the head and as his companions came to assist him, a group of five
persons coming from behind the police outpost rushed at the trio. One of these, the accused Romulo Garcia, stabbed Manuel
hitting him on the chest, while the others started throwing rocks at the trio. At the same time, another person stabbed Perito
and hit him on the right thigh. Upon seeing Manuel fall down, Perito and Mediona fled and ran towards the church to get a
vehicle. When they were about to ride a jeep, a mobile unit of the Pasay City Police Department arrived. Perito and Mediona
immediately reported to the policemen and the mobile unit proceeded to the scene of the crime and apprehended some of the
accused. In the meantime, Perito and Mediona brought the wounded Manuel at the Philippine General Hospital, Manuel died
the next day.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of band and abuse of superior strength was taken advantaged by the
respondent and other accused

RULING: YES. Being superior in number and armed with knives and stones, appellant and his companions took advantage of
their collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victims who were not armed. It is therefore evident that the
aggravating circumstances of band and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of the crime.

People vs. Lagarto, 196 SCRA, May 6, 1991 – recidivist

At about 6:00 PM of May 25, 1983, Reynaldo Aducal (victim), who was buying fish in the public market, Poblacion Laoang,
Northern Samar, when Reynaldo Lagarto Jr (accused) did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and felonisously attack, assault,
and stabbed twice Aducal on his right and left breast, with a Batangas fan knife or balisong.

Right after the stabbing, Pfc Wenefredo Laguitan immediately followed the accused and apprehended him. The accused was
brought to the police headquarters and admitted that he had long planned to kill the victim. It was a revenge or retaliation of
the accused for his brother Pablito, to which the victim stabbed in 1980. He was charged with the crime of murder. It was also
found out that the accused was previously convicted by another crime of homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court correctly appreciated the existence of recidivism.

RULING:Yes. The Court found that the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Herein accused had been convicted of the crime of homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 before the trial of the present Criminal
Case No. 1566. The former counsel de oficio of herein accused alleged that the judgment in Criminal Case No. 1473 was
rendered on September 15, 1983, hence when the accused was arraigned on October 11, 1983 for Criminal Case No. 1566 he
was not a recidivist.

The former counsel de oficio is of the opinion that "the time of trial" is to be reckoned with the date of the arraignment. The
phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively construed as to mean the date of arraignment.

We declared in People vs. Enriquez, 90 Phil. 428, that the phrase "at the time of his trial for an offense" is employed in its
general sense, including the rendering of the judgment. In US vs. Karelsen, 3 Phil. 23, We held that the phrase "at the trial" 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. In the case at bar, the accused was convicted of homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 on September 15,
1983. There being no appeal, the judgment therein became final on October 11, 1983. The second conviction was rendered on
October 26, 1983 for Murder. Hence, it is crystal clear that the accused is a recidivist
People vs. Lacao, et al., 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991 - recidivist

That on or about the 28th day of September, 1985, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, in Brgy. Manibad, Municipality of
Mambusao, Province of Capiz, Mila Parto was at her house in Barangay Manibad attending to persons who came to the wake of
her aunt, Nemesia Lacao. Mila Parto is the sister-in-law of the deceased police Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. While she was so
engaged, she heard and witnessed a commotion at the first floor of the two-storey house and the events that took place
thereafter. The commotion arose from a card game where one Mansueto Rivera was losing and accused Baltazar Lacao II, who
was playing with him, was furiously arguing with the former. Baltazar Lacao II then unsheathed his knife and threatened
Mansueto Rivera by pointing the knife at the latter's neck. Wilma Rivera, the sister-in-law of Mansueto, intervened and Baltazar
Lacao II released the latter. Baltazar Lacao II then went inside the house wielding his knife and causing the other guests to
panic.

It was then that Cpl. Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. went down to inquire into the matter and to pacify the people. When he saw Baltazar
Lacao II with a knife, he held the latter's hand holding that knife. Baltazar Lacao II then said: "Nyor, release me." As Cpl.
Inocencio did not release him, the latter's mother, Patria Lacao, then said: "Nyor, release my son." When Cpl. Inocencio
released Baltazar Lacao II, the latter suddenly stabbed Inocencio on his right side. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. and his other son, Baltazar
Lacao III, together with his wife, Patria Lacao, and his sister, Trinidad Lacao Mansilla, rushed inside the house and surrounded
the victim.

The men then stabbed Cpl. Inocencio several times while the women hit him with stools. As the attack continued, the victim
was pushed toward the door of the kitchen and he later slumped on the floor facing downward. Baltazar Lacao, Sr. then sat
astride him and continued stabbing the latter as he was thus lying prostrate. Thereafter, this appellant asked: "Nyor, Nyor, are
you still alive?" Appellant Patria Lacao interjected: "What are you waiting for, it is already finished, we have to go." Baltazar
Lacao III then got the gun of Cpl. Inocencio and all the accused went away.
That accused Baltazar Lacao, Sr., alias "Bantan", has been previously convicted by final judgment of the crime of homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not aggrevating circumstances of recidivist is present?

RULING: Appellant Baltazar Lacao, Sr. admitted during the trial that he was once convicted of the crime of homicide but he was
granted an absolute pardon therefore.The lower court properly considered recidivism since a pardon for a preceding offense
does not obliterate the fact that the accused is a recidivist upon his conviction of a second offense embraced in the same title
of the Code. This aggravating circumstance of recidivism accordingly offsets the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender by Baltazar Lacao, Sr.

People vs. Quiñanola, –craft, fraud or disguise employed

The victim, Catalina Carciller, together with her cousin, Rufo Ginto and another friend, Richard Diaz was on their way home
from a dance party when the accused, Agapito “Petoy” Quianola and Eduardo “Botiquil” Escuadro turned up on the waiting
shed, they announced that they were members of the NPA where the youngsters are momentarily resting. Armed with guns,
the accused ordered the two boys to lie on the ground while Escuadro urinated on them. Quinola, on the other hand, brought
Catalina to a nearby school and made her sit on the ground. When she resisted, Quianola pointed his gun at her and threatened
to kill her if she would not willingly obey his demands. the two boys having escaped successfully when Escuadro was zipping his
pants. Quianola ordered Escuadro to remove her denim pants while Catalina resisted. Having succeeded in undressing her,
Quianola unzipped his pants and laid on top of her while Escuadro held her legs. Quianola started to pump, to push and pull
even as Catalina still tried desperately to free herself from him. She felt his organ "on the lips of (her) genitalia.When Quianola
had satisfied his lust, Escuadro took his turn by placing himself on top of Catalina. Catalina could feel the sex organ of Escuadro
on the lips of her vulva while he made a push and pull movement. The accused immediately scampered after. In the physical
examination conducted on Catalina, it was found that the hymen was intact and that there was no complete penetration. The
trial court ruled that the accused were liable for frustrated rape. The accused, in their defense, cited alibis, ill-motive, and
mistaken identity.

ISSUE: Whether or not craft, fraud or disguise is employed

RULING: No. Craft fraud or disguise53 is a species of aggravating circumstance that denotes intellectual trickery or cunning
resorted to by an accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design or to lure the victim into a trap and to conceal the
identity of the accused. The fact that one of the appellants has pretended to be a member of the New People's Army does not
necessarily imply the use of craft, fraud or disguise, in the commission of the crime.
U.S. vs. Iglesia, 21 Phil. 55, December 14, 1911 - ignominy

FACTS: Early in the evening of March 29, 1910, Pedro Iglesia being armed with a revolver, appeared at the house of Santos
Pascual and pretending to be detectives required Pascual to exhibit his personal cedula. Besides his wife, two other women,
Inocencia Fernandez and Marcela Jose, lived in Santos Pascual’s house. Iglesia asked these two women where their husbands
were, and, when they answered that they were away, Iglesia caught Inocencia Fernandez around the waist but she resisted and
took refuge in a neighboring house. Iglesia who had demanded Santos Pascual’s personal cedula, took possession of it and
made him and his wife go with them to the town; but on reaching a solitary spot, called Nagtuturican, Juan Valdez separated
the husband from his wife. Igleasia threatened the wife, Dorotea de la Cruz, with the revolver and, after gagging her, forcibly lay
with her. When his evil designs had been accomplished, Iglesia went to watch the husband and Juan Valdez did likewise forcibly
lay with Dorotea de la Cruz. Juan Valdez took Dorotea de la Cruz to the town, but upon approaching the railway station he was
caught by the teniente of the barrio. Pedro Iglesia was arrested by the police in Nagtuturican itself.

ISSUE: Whether or not ignominy is appreciated in this case

RULING: The accused were guilty of the crime of rape, committed with the aggravating circumstances of astucia, despoblado
and ignominia. After a careful examination of the evidence and considering the circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime and the character of the defendants, the Court found that they are not entitled to the benefit of the extenuating
circumstance of article 11 of the Penal Code. It is difficult to imagine how men who call themselves men could secure the
consent of their consciences to commit a crime in the manner in which these defendants committed the crime with which they
are charged. In addition to the aggravating circumstances, SC found that the aggravating circumstance of "ignominia," provided
for in paragraph 12 of article 10 of the Penal Code, should be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Considering the three
aggravating circumstances of astucia, despoblado and ignominia, and the absence of any extenuating circumstances, SC ruled
that each of the defendants should be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of seventeen years four months and one day of
reclusion temporal, to indemnify Dorotea de la Cruz, jointly and severally, in the sum of P500.