ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

PEOPLE v. COSTALES

Facts:

Accused Fernando Costales and Fernando Ramirez are the high priests of Baro
a Cristiano were Miguel Marcelo, his wife, Crispina and their daughters were members
thereof. Miguel and Crispina decided to quit the congregation but they were warned by
Ramirez not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not want any harm to befall
them. Jessie, the daughter of Miguel and Crispina recalled that, her family was
preparing for the night when two persons, whom she readily recognized to be Ramirez
and Costales, suddenly barged into their house. Costales poked a gun at the head of
Miguel and shot him dead. Ramirez, on the other hand, sprayed tear gas and with his
firearm pumped a bullet on her mothers chest. Costales and Ramirez, stood charged
with the murder of Miguel and the frustrated murder of Crispina. They were also
charged with violation of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294 for having been found to be
in unlawful possession firearms.

Issue:

Whether or not the use of an unlicensed firearm be considered an aggravating

circumstance and not as a separate offense

Ruling:

Yes. Although the prosecution duly established that the crime of illegal
possession of firearm under PD 1866 was committed, RA 8294, which took effect 7 July
1997, amended the decree and now considers the use of unlicensed firearm as a
special aggravating circumstance in murder and homicide, and not as a separate
offense. As it should be, possession and use of firearm without license should
aggravate the crimes of murder and frustrated murder as herein charged but, fortunately
for accused-appellant, Secs. 8 and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
which took effect 1 December 2000, now require the qualifying as well as aggravating
circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged in the complaint or information,
otherwise the same will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial.
Withal, in the absence of any allegation in the Information, that accused-appellant
committed murder with the use of unlicensed firearm, the same cannot be appreciated
in imposing the proper penalty. Thus, the crime of murder not being considered to have
been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, accused-
appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is sentenced to suffer only the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. In Crim. Case No., T-2056, the crime of attempted murder not likewise
considered to have been attended by any generic mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, accused-appellant Fernando "Ando" Costales is accordingly sentenced
in addition to his penalty imposed in Crim. Case No. T-2057 herein before mentioned, to
suffer an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision
correccional medium as minimum, to eight (8) years and six (6) months of prision mayor
minimum as maximum.

PEOPLE v. DE LEON

Facts:

Early morning when the employees of Energex Gasoline Station were on duty,
one of their customers announced a holdup. The accused were armed with a shotgun
and .38 caliber pistol. They robbed the employees and took the money in the cashiers
office. One of the employees was also shot during the robbery incident. As a result of
the above incident, four Informations for Robbery with Homicide were filed against
appellants.

Issue:

Whether or not the use of unlicensed firearm is a special or a generic

aggravating circumstance

Ruling:

It was already held in several cases that with the passage of Republic Act No.
8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now
considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating
circumstance. Republic Act No. 8294 applies to the instant case since it took effect
before the commission of the crimes in 21 April 1998. Therefore, the use of an
unlicensed firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and
appreciated as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic
aggravating circumstance.

SOMBILON v. PEOPLE
PEOPLE v. DADULLA

ART. 14, PAR. 1 THAT THE ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS
PUBLIC POSITION

PEOPLE v. MANDOLADO

FACTS:

Both accused were trainees/draftees of the AFP stationed in Cotabato. While

drunk and with the use of his .30 caliber machine gun, Mandolado fired at a bus
terminal in Midsayap, at a speeding vehicle and at the victims Tenorio (driver of Ford
Fiera) and one Mendoza which led to their instantaneous death. His co-accused
Ortillano during the last incident fired his gun downwards. In all these incidents,
Ortillano was with Mandolado. When they reached Pikit, they returned their weapons,
managed to travel to Davao City where they were apprehended.

ISSUE:

Whether or not aggravating circumstance is present in this case.

HELD:

No. There is no proof that the accused-appellants influenced, threatened or took

advantage of their positions in order to realize their purpose and absent is the relation
between the parties neither immediate nor personal.

When Mandolado and Ortillano hitched hike Tenorios vehicle, the former did not intend
to shoot the occupants of the vehicle and there was no relation between the parties
(personal or immediate).

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. x x x

1.That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position

Although appellants were holding public positions, nothing can be shown that the
appellants used their influence as a means to realize their purpose (U.S. v. Rodriguez,
19 Phil. 150,156-157)
There was no immediate or personal relationship between the parties. There was no
proof that the accused took advantage of their positions. Absent is the proof of
intimidation and they were not on duty at that time, although they were wearing uniforms
and armed.

When they rode the Tenorios vehicle, the appellants did not use any influence.

There is no conclusive showing that appellants while in uniform facilitated the

commission of the crimes they were charged.

There is nothing to show that appellant Mandolado took advantage of his being a
sergeant in the Philippine Army to commit crimes. His having worn a fatigue uniform
and had army rifle is not sufficient to show that he misused his public position in the
commission of the crimes.

In People v. Herrera, the Court emphatically said that the mere fact that accused-
appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is
not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the
crime (People v. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002)

In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that there

exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom
the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit
the crime (Peo vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172)

It is also essential that the confidence between the parties be immediate and personal
as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended partys belief that the former would not abuse
said confidence (Peo vs. Hanasan, 29 SCRA 534)

PPL v. GAPASIN

FACTS:

As a member of the then Philippine Constabulary (PC) in 1979, accused-

appellant had a mission to investigate a report regarding the alleged presence of
unidentified armed men in Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. With some local men who
served as his informants, he stalked a suspect, Jerry Calpito. And when Calpito was
walking home, appellant accosted him and fired at him several times even when he was
already down.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
position is attendant.

RULING:

Yes. First, the accused, being a PC member, was a public officer. Then, using
his position, he enlisted the help of several other persons, and together, they stalked the
suspect-victim. Finally, accused-appellant went well beyond his duty as a public officer
when he murdered the suspect using the rifle assigned to him, instead of simply
apprehending the suspect or reporting him to his superiors so a warrant of arrest and
seizure of the unlicensed firearm could be obtained.

PPL v. VILLA

Facts:

In the early morning of 22 June 1991 Dionito Fernandez was cutting grass in his
yard in New Cabalan, Olongapo City. Accused Rodolfo Villa, Jr., a member of the
CAFGU and neighbor of Dionito, suddenly came out of his house with his M-1 Garand
rifle and shot Dionito from behind killing him instantly. Ronald Fernandez and Sheila
Fernandez, children of Dionito, rushed to their fathers rescue after hearing the gunshot
but the accused also fired at them fatally hitting Ronald who was embracing his father,
and mortally wounding Sheila on the thigh and stomach. Samuel Eclevia, another
neighbor of the Fernandezes, attempted to wrestle the rifle from the accused but
Samuel too was gunned down. After his rampage, Rodolfo Villa Jr. surrendered to a
certain Captain Dolino of S2 OMDC (Olongapo Metropolitan District Command).
Rodolfo was accordingly charged with multiple murders.

Issue:

WON the aggravating circumstance of Article 14 paragraph 1 be considered?

Held:

No. The court held that on the penalties imposed by the trial court, we do not
agree that the aggravating circumstance of "taking advantage of his public position" as
a CAFGU member should be considered against accused-appellant. The mere fact that
he was a member of the CAFGU and was issued an M-1 Garand rifle is not sufficient to
establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes.

PPL v. VILLAMOR

FACTS:

- Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on their way home after having dinner at
a friends house. They were on board a motorcycle, while Jerry was the one
driving.

- Assailants were identified as PO3 Villamor (PNP member) who conspired with
Maghilom (Public officer) who suddenly, unsuspectedly and deliberately attack
unsuspecting and unarmed victims who were blissfully unaware of the onrushing
peril behind them.

- Jerry sustained gunshot wounds, while Jelord died on the spot.

ISSUE:

Did the accused-appellant abuse his office to commit the crime?

HELD:

Treachery attended the killing of the victim, that at the time of the shooting, the
brothers were not in the position to defend themselves from the sudden attack of their
assailants. However, there was no showing that accused-appellant took advantage of
his being a policeman to shoot Jelord or that he used his influence, prestige or
ascendancy in killing the victim. He could have shot Jelord even without being a
policeman. In other words, the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position.

PPLv. FALLORINA

FACTS:
 - Accused was an officer of the PNP, detailed in the Traffic Management Group.

- Victim was an 11 year old minor, together with his friends were playing on the
rooftop of an abandoned carenderia.

- When accused arrived, he saw the children and shouted at them.

- While lying down with his stomach, upon hearing the shout, victim stood up and
was ready to go down.

-Accused pointed his .45 cal pistol towards the victim and fired a shot.

-Victim was hit and fell from the roof.

-Victim was rushed to the hospital by the accused but was pronounced dead on
arrival.

ISSUE:

Did the accused take advantage of his public position in committing the crime?

HELD:

No. There was no dispute that the accused was a policeman and used his
service firearm in shooting the victim. However, there was no evidence on record that
the accused took advantage of his position as a policeman. The shooting occurred only
when the accused saw the victim on the rooftop.

ART. 14, PAR 2: THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH

INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

PEOPLE v. RODIL

FACTS:

Accused Floro Rodil was charged with murder for stabbing to death, the
deceased, Guillermo Masana. Guillermo Masana, a Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant,
together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel and Ricardo Ligsa, coast guard was having lunch
inside a restaurant. Masana dressed in a civilian clothes, saw Rodil,the accused,
outside the restaurant. He then went outside together with Fidel and approached Rodil.
Masana introduced himself as a PC officer and asked Rodil if the gun tucked on his
waist had a license. Instead of answering, Rodil step backward and tried to draw his
gun but Fidel was able to stop him. The three of them went back inside the restaurant,
wherein Masana and Rodil occupied a separate table from the group. While Masana
placed the gun on the table and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked
Rodil to countersigned it, but Rodil refused and asked Masana to return his gun. As
Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled out a double bladed dagger and stabbed
Masana several times, which cause his death. The chief of police Primo Panaligan was
also inside the restaurant and was able to help in wrestling the dagger from Rodil.

ISSUE:

Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance under Article 14 Par. 3 with
insult or lack of disregard of rank can be appreciated.

HELD:

Yes. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated

because the victim identified himself as a Philippine Constabulary to Rodil who was
merely a member of Anti-smuggling Unit and was therefore inferior both in rank and
social status to the victim. The difference in official and social status between Philippine
Constabulary Lieutenant and a member of Anti-Smuggling Unit is patent. If Rodil was
charged with complex of crime of murder with assault against an agent of authority and
not merely a murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may not be
appreciated because the circumstance will be absorbed into change of assault against
an agent of person in authority. But in this case, Rodil was charged with murder;
therefore the aggravating circumstance of disregard was appreciated in this imposition
of penalties. The appeal was affirmed, the charged was Homicide aggravated by
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank.

ART 14, PAR 3: WITH INSULT OR LACK OR REGARD DUE TO OFFENDED PARTY
BY REASON OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, DWELLING.

PEOPLE v. SANTOS

PPL v. DANIEL
PPL v. RODIL

ISSUE:

Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance under Article 14 Par. 3 with
insult or lack of disregard of rank can be appreciated.

FACTS:

Accused Floro Rodil was charged with murder for stabbing to death, the
deceased, Guillermo Masana.

Guillermo Masana, a Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant, together with PC soldier

Virgilio Fidel and Ricardo Ligsa, coast guard was having lunch inside a restaurant.

Masana dressed in a civilian clothes, saw Rodil,the accused, outside the restaurant. He
then went outside together with Fidel and approached Rodil. Masana introduced himself
as a PC officer and asked Rodil if the gun tucked on his waist had a license. Instead of
answering, Rodil step backward and tried to draw his gun but Fidel was able to stop
him.

The three of them went back inside the restaurant, wherein Masana and Rodil occupied
a separate table from the group. While Masana placed the gun on the table and wrote a
receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to countersigned it, but Rodil refused
and asked Masana to return his gun. As Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled
out a double bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times, which cause his death.

The chief of police Primo Panaligan was also inside the restaurant and was able to help
in wrestling the dagger from Rodil.

HELD:

Yes. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated

because the victim identified himself as a Phililpine Constabulary to Rodil who was
merely a member of Anti-smuggling Unit and was therefore inferior both in rank and
social status to the victim. The difference in official and social status between Philippine
Constabulary Lieutenant and a member of Anti-Smuggling Unit is patent.

If Rodil was charged with complex of crime of murder with assault against an agent of
authority and not merely a murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
rank may not be appreciated because the circumstance will be absorbed into change of
assault against an agent of person in authority.
But in this case, Rodil was charged with murder, therefore the aggravating circumstance
of disregard was appreciated in this imposition of penalties. The appeal was affirmed,
the charged was Homicide aggravated by disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank.

PPL v. TANO

PPL v. REYES

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with robbery with homicide in an information, the
accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about June 11, 1998, in the municipality
of Lumban, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused , with intent to gain, and while conveniently armed with a bolo,
by means of violence against or intimidation of person, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one (1) ladies wristwatch marked
Rolex ; one (1) gold ring with birthstone of Jade; one (1) Pass Book in the name of the
victim, Aurora Lagrada, in the total amount of Php. 80,000.00, all belonging to Aurora
Lagrada, to her damage and prejudice, in the aforementioned amount, that by reason or
on the occasion of the said robbery accused with intent to kill and while conveniently
armed with a bolo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab one Aurora Lagrada several times in the different parts of her body, which
directly caused her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of her surviving
heirs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lower court erred in applying Article 14, paragraph 3 of the
RPC.

HELD:

The ruling of the trial court is not correct.

First. Robbery with homicide is essentially a felony against property. The

aggravating circumstance of disregard of the victims age is applied only to crimes
against persons and honor. The bare fact that the victim is a woman does not per se
constitute disregard of sex. For this circumstance to be properly considered, the
prosecution must adduce evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused
had particularly intended to insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim. In this
case, the appellant killed the victim because the latter started to shout. There was no
intent to insut nor commit disrespect to the victim on account of the latters sex.
 Second. The fact that the crime was committed in the victims dwelling, without
provocation on the part of the latter, is aggravating in robbery with homicide. However,
such circumstance was not alleged in the information as mandated by Section 8, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the crime was committed
before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the said rule should
be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the appellant.

PPL v. EVANGELIO

Facts

On 3rd day of October 2001 the accused, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and armed with a handgun and
deadly/bladed weapons forcibly enter the inhabited house/residence of BBB and while
inside, by means of violence and intimidation using said arms on the latter and the other
occupants therein, and without the consent of their owners did, then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, take, and carry away from said residence the following
personal properties and on the occasion of the said robbery and in the same
house/residence, accused, by means of force and intimidation and using the said
handgun and deadly/bladed weapons, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, a 17-year-oldminor, against her will and
consent and at the time when the latter lost consciousness after her head was banged
on the bathroom floor.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of

dwelling.

Held

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was also attendant in the present

case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the
offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor. In this case,
robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victims without provocation on
their part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is
aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. It is considered an
aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law
accords to the human abode. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him
wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.
 ART. 14, PAR. 4. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

PPL v. CALISO

PPL v. LORA

PPL v. MANDOLADO

PPL v. ARROJADO

ART. 14. PAR. 5. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE PALACE

OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS PRESENCE, WHERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR
DUTIES, OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED FOR WORSHIP.

PPL v. JAURIGUE

ART. 14, PAR. 6. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITED IN THE NIGHT

TIME, OR IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE

PPL v. LAGUARDIA

PPL v. MARRA
PPL v. DESALISA

PPL v. LIBRANDO

PPL v. VENTURA

PPL v. WALPAN LADJAAMLAM

PPL v. AVECILLA

PPL v. VENTURA

ART 14, PAR 8. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF
ARMED MEN, OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY

PPL v. LOZANO

PPL v. CARINO

PPL v. ENOJA

ART. 14, PAR 11.THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN

CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.
US v. GAMAO
 ART. 14, PAR. 13. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION
PPL v. LUG-AW

PPL v. ILAO-A

PPL v. ZETA

PPL v. FALABRICA

PPL v. SANCHEZ

PPL V. GABRINO

PPL v. ALINAO

PPL v. SABANGAN

ART. 14, PAR 14. THAT CRAFT, FRAUD AND DISGUISE BE

EMPLOYED.

PPL v. MARQUEZ

PPL v. EMPACIS
PPL v. LABUGUEN

ART 14, PAR 15. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR

STRENGTH, OR MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.

PPL v. CABATO

PPL v. RUELAN

PPL v. PADILLA

PPL v. SANSAET

PPL v. DE JESUS

PPL v. LAOG

PPL v. SALCEDO

PPL v. PALING

FANTASTICO & VILLANUEVA v. MALICSE, SR& PPL

ART. 14, PAR. 16 THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH TREACHERY

PPL v. JOSE

PPL v. PANSENSOY

PPL v. VILLACORTA

PPL v. YANSON
PPL v. AGACER

PPL v. NELMIDA

PPL v. AQUINO

PPL v. GUNDA

PPL v. FELICIANO

PPL v. MATIBAG

ART 14, PAR 17. IGNOMINY

PPL v. JOSE (1971)

PPL v. BUMIDANG

PPL v. CACHOLA

ART 14, PAR 18. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN

UNLAWFUL ENTRY.

PPL v. BAELLO
 ART. 14, PAR 21. CRUELTY

PPL v. ILAO-A

PPL v. CATIAN

PPL v. GUERRERO

SIMANGAN v. PPL

ART. 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

PPL v. ORILLA

RELATIONSHIP
PPL v. ATOP

PPL v. MARCOS

INTOXICATION
PPL v. CAMANO

PPL v. RENEJANE

PPL v. TAMBIS
PPL v. FONTILLAS

PPL v. PATELAN

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

PPL v.MACATANDA

PPL v. ENOT

PPL v. LANSANAS

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

PPL v. DORIA

PPL v. PACIS

PPL v. ESPIRITU

INTESTATE ESTATE OF GONZALES v. PPL

ART. 17. PRINCIPALS

PPL v. QUILLOSA

PPL v. JANJALANI

GUILLERGAN v. PPL

AMBAGAN v. PPL

ART. 18. ACCOMPLICES

PPL v. MANDOLADO

PPL v. DOCTOLERO

PPL v. TAMAYO

PPL v. CRUZ, JR

PPL v. P01 EUSEBIO

PPL v. SALVADOR

PPL v. GAMBAO

ART. 19. ACCESSORIES

PPL v. INOVERA

VINO v. PPL

PPL v. ORTEGA

PPL v. TALINGDAN

HIZON- PAMINTUAN v. PPL

TAN v. PPL

FRANCISCO v. PPL

ONG v. PPL

ART 22. RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS

PPL v. BON

ART 23. EFFECT OF PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY

PPL v. SANTIAGO

ART. 27. DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES

PPL v. UYCOGUE

ART 28. COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES

PPL v. FORMIGONES

ART 30-33. EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

O.P. v. CATAGUEZ

ART 36.PARDON; ITS EFFECTS

MONSANTO v. FACTORAN

ART 39. SUBSIDIARY PENALTY

JAO YU v. PPL

YOLANDA LUY v. PPL

ART. 45. CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OR

INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME

PDEA v. BRODETT

ART 47. DEATH PENALTY

PPL v. MUNOZ