1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying
a. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense
or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity,
b. in consideration of price, reward or promise,
c. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car
or locomotive, fall of airship, by means of motor vehicles or
with the use of any other means involving great waste or ruin,
d. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public calamity,
e. with evident premeditation, or
f. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the
suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse; and
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense.
Otherwise, it would be attempted or frustrated murder.
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill becomes irrelevant.
It is important only if the victim did not die to determine if the
felony is physical injury or attempted or frustrated homicide.
That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described
in Article 248. When more than one of said circumstances are present,
the others must be considered as generic aggravating.
That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one
qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic
Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
information. Otherwise, they will only be considered as generic
Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use
PEOPLE vs. SANTOS, GR 127492, 1/16/04
A sudden and unexpected attack under circumstances which render
the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia.
PEOPLE vs. ERIC GUILLERMO, GR 147786, 1/20/04
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
PEOPLE vs. MONTAÑEZ, GR 148257, 3/17/04
The barefaced fact that Daniel Sumaylo pleaded
guilty to the felony of homicide is not a bar to the
appellant being found guilty of murder as a principal.
It bears stressing that Sumaylo plea-bargained on his
re-arraignment. Even if the public prosecutor and the
father of the victim agreed to Sumaylo's plea, the
State is not barred from prosecuting the appellant for
murder on the basis of its evidence, independently of
Sumaylo's plea of guilt.
People v. Pugay and Samson
Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Intending to
make fun of a retard, Pugay poured gasoline on the latter while
Samson set him on fire. The retard died. There was no animosity
between the two accused and the victim such that it cannot be
said that they resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part
of their fun making but because their acts were felonious, they
are criminally liable.
POISON - Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in
murder by poison only if the offender has the intent
to kill the victim by use of poison.
- act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim
- Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or
promise, if without the premeditation the inductor
would not have induced the other to commit the act but
not as regards the one induced.
CRUELTY - Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance
of cruelty requires that the victim be alive, when the
cruel wounds were inflicted and, therefore, must be
evidence to that effect. Yet, in murder, aside from
cruelty, any act that would amount to scoffing or
decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the
killing to murder.