Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or
ascendancy which his office gives him as means to
realize criminal purpose
It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where
taking advantage of official position is made by law an
integral element of the crime or inherent in the offense,
Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document
committed by public officers (Art. 171).
When the public officer did not take advantage of
the influence of his position, this aggravating
circumstance is not present
NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is
also inherent in the case of accessories under
Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting
in the escape of the principal of the crime), and in
crimes committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with
insult to public authorities
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise
of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said
functions is not the person against whom the crime
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from
committing the criminal act.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is
directly vested with jurisdiction and has the power to
govern and execute the laws
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized
private school is not a “public authority within the
contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person
in authority under Art. 152, that status is only for
purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.
152 (resistance and disobedience)
The crime should not be committed against the public
authority (otherwise it will constitute direct assault
under Art.148) This is NOT applicable when committed
in the presence of a mere agent.
AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the
maintenance of public order and protection and
security of life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
Par. 3. That the act be committed:
(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his
(b) age, or
(c) sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation
Rules regarding par 3(1):
1. These circumstances shall only be considered as one
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in
crimes against persons or honor, they cannot be
invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the crime
the offender deliberately intended to offend or
insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.
RANK – The designation or title of distinction used to
fix the relative position of the offended party in
reference to others (There must be a difference in the
social condition of the offender and the offended party).
AGE – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
SEX– refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not
applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the
offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable
in the commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
People vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989
Disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery
because treachery refers to the manner of the commission
of the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains
to the relationship of the victim.
DWELLING – must be a building or structure exclusively
used for rest and comfort (combination of house and store
not included), may be temporary as in the case of guests
in a house or bedspacers. It includes dependencies, the
foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that
the crime be wholly or partly committed therein or in
any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or
domicile of the offended party or that he must be the
owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or
dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should have actually
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
house, although the assailant may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from without.
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s dwelling:
1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed
in the offender by opening the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing
therein with violence or against the will of the owner.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended
party is deemed to have given the provocation, and the
fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the
offended party is NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked
the incident, he loses his right to the respect and
consideration due him in his own house
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:
1. When both the offender and the offended party are
occupants of the same house, and this is true even
if offender is a servant in the house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal
dwelling, the same is aggravating.
However, if the paramour also dwells
in the conjugal dwelling, the applicable
aggravating circumstance is abuse of
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon
things, dwelling is not aggravating because it is
However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party’s house.
3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling,
it is inherent or included by law in defining the
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and
There must exist a close relation between the
provocation made by the victim and the
commission of the crime by the accused.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Par. 4. That the act be committed with:
(1) abuse of confidence or
(2) obvious ungratefulness
There are two aggravating circumstances present under
par.4 which must be independently appreciated if present
in the same case
While one may be related to the other in the factual
situation in the case, they cannot be lumped together.
Abuse of confidence requires a special confidential
relationship between the offender and the victim,
while this is not required for there to be obvious
Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a
crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation
(Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified
seduction (Art. 337).
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a
crime against the offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be
such clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of
Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive, or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime
is committed in the palace or in the presence of the
Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:
1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their
Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):
1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the
worship of God regardless of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime
when he entered the place of worship
Except for the third which requires that official
functions are being performed at the time of the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are
aggravating per se even if no official duties or acts
of religious worship are being conducted there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not
considered as place dedicated to the worship of God.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed
(1) in the nighttime, or
(2) in an uninhabited place, or
(3) by a band,
whenever such circumstance may facilitate
the commission of the offense
NOTE: When present in the same case and their
element are distinctly palpable and can subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure
the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity
NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness
beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished
in the nighttime. When the place of the crime is
illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
It is not considered aggravating when the crime
began at daytime.
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion
to commit the crime was conceived of shortly before
commission or when crime was committed at night upon a
However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for
(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to
commit the crime
A bare statement that crime was committed at night is
insufficient. The information must allege that nighttime
was sought for or taken advantage of, or that it
facilitated the crime
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and
nocturnity were deliberately decided upon in the same case,
they can be considered separately if such circumstances
have different factual bases. Thus:
In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),
nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought,
and treachery was further appreciated because the
victim’s hands and arms were tied together before he
was beaten up by the accused.
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was
treachery as the victim was stabbed while lying face
up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon
proof that it facilitated the commission of the offense
and was taken advantage of by the accused.
UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where there are no
houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from
town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance
from each other
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal
What should be considered here is whether in the
place of the commission of the offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed
malefactors that shall have acted together in the commission
of an offense
NOT E: There must be four or more armed men
If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal
by inducement, they do not form a band because
it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or
against persons or in the crime of illegal detention or
treason but does not apply to crimes against chastity
“By a band” is inherent in brigandage
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion
or chaotic condition from such misfortune
If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party
during the calamity/misfortune, this aggravating
circumstance may not be taken into consideration.
Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of
(1) armed men or
(2) persons who insure or afford impunity
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission
of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid
or relied upon them when the crime was committed
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed
men are accomplices who take part in a minor capacity
directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely
present at the crime scene. Neither should they constitute
a band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance
would be cuadrilla.
When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked
were equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with
him in the commission of the crime acted under the same
plan and for the same purpose.
3. When the others were only “casually present” and the
offender did not avail himself of any of their aid or
when he did not knowingly count upon their assistance
in the commission of the crime
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed
in employment of a band. If there are three armed men or
less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.
“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”
Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist
RECIDIVIST – 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 RPC.
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.”
It is employed in its general sense, including the
rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include
everything that is done in the course of the trial, from
arraignment until after sentence is announced by the
judge in open court.
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL,
not the time of the commission of the offense.
GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach thereto
certified copy of the sentences rendered against the accused.
Exception: If the accused does not object and when he
admits in his confession and on the witness stand.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter
how many years have intervened between the
first and second felonies.
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects.
However, pardon does not obliterate the fact that
the accused was a recidivist. Thus, even if the
accused was granted a pardon for the first
offense but he commits another felony embraced
in the same title of the Code, the first conviction
is still counted to make him a recidivist
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance,
recidivism affects only the periods of a penalty,
except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and
gambling (PD 1602) wherein recidivism increases
the penalties by degrees. No other generic
aggravating circumstance produces this effect
In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding
offense be committed after the commission of the
preceding offense provided that at the time of his
trial for the second offense, the accused had
already been convicted of the first offense.
If both offenses were committed on the same date,
they shall be considered as only one, hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to constitute
recidivism. Also, judgments of convicted handed down
on the same day shall be considered as only one
REASON: Because the Code requires that to be
considered as a separate convictions, at the time of
his trial for one crime the accused shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of the other.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense
to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall
shall have served out his sentence for the first
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment has
been rendered in the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must
not be embraced in the same title of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included
in the same title of the code.
THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:
1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on
separate occasions, is convicted of two offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a
generic aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) –
Where the offender has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art.
62, par, 5) – Where a person within a period of ten
years from the date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of
the said crimes a third time or oftener. This is an
extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person
commits felony before beginning to serve or while
serving sentence on a previous conviction for a
felony. This is a special aggravating circumstance.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly
served the sentence for his previous conviction/s, or
is legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism
cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion,
hence this aggravating circumstance cannot apply
to a quasi-recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and
reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of price,
reward or promise.
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the
NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.
It affects the person who received the price / reward as
well as the person who gave it.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after
the crime had been committed asan expression of his
appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer
to material things or that the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal
by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.
The inducement must be the primary consideration for the
commission of the crime.
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any artifice involving
great waste and ruin
The circumstances under this paragraph will only be considered
as aggravating if and when they are used by the offender as a
means to accomplish a criminal purpose
When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the
crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is
qualified to murder.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there
was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the
conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as
outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that
the offender had sufficient time to reflect upon the
consequences of his act but still persisted in his determination
to commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR No.
140871, August 8, 2002)
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.
When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation
is not aggravating. However, if the offender premeditated on
the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against
the offender the aggravating circumstance of premeditation,
because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his
Par. 14. That (1) craft,
(2) fraud, or
(3) disguise be employed.
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise
to facilitate the commission of the crime.
CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or
cunning on the part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to
by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime
FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to induce
the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender
to carry out his design
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery ifthey have been
deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where
they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission
of the crime.
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980),
where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to
get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed
to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986)
there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody,
when in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.
DISGUISE (disfraz) – resorting to any device to conceal identity
The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance
resorted to by the offender was intended to or did make
identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or
false hair or beard.
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel
Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or
(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating circumstances, either of
which qualifies a killing to murder.
MEANING OF “advantage be taken”:To deliberately use excessive
force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense
available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs. LOBRIGAS, et.
al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)
No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The Following:
1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
TEST for abuse of superior strength: the relative strength of
the offender and his victim and whether or not he took
advantage of his greater strength.
When there are several offenders participating in the crime,
they must ALL be principals by direct participation and their
attack against the victim must be concerted and intended
to be so.
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of
parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally
accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.
Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender
uses a weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the offended party.
NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (“band”).
MEANING OF “Means employed to weaken defense” - the offender
employs means that materially weaken the resisting power of
the offended party.
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.
NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against
persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
TEST: It is not only the relative position of the parties but,
more specifically, whether or not the victim was forewarned or
afforded the opportunity to make a defense or to ward off
Rules Regarding Treachery:
1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the
person is complexed with another felony involving a different
classification in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, treachery but can be
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.
The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,
even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was
Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner
of attack is not shown.
Treachery must be convincing evidence proved by clear and
Treachery is considered against all the offenders when there
WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:
1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
in the beginning of the assault. (PEOPLE vs. MANALAD, GR
No. 128593, August 14, 2002)
Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the
delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot
be said that the crime was attended by treachery.
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that there was
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present
at the moment the fatal blow was given.
Hence, even though in the inception of the aggression
which ended in the death of the deceased, treachery
was not present, if there was a break in the continuity of
the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was
inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into account.
Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:
1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic
intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging
to a class. (The same rule obtains for evident premeditation).
2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a person different
from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the
one intended by the accused. (A different rule is applied in
REASON FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it is impossible
for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
himself against the aggression.
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
5. Aid of armed men
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
by the crime.
MEANING OF “which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof”
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend
to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral
suffering. Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where
the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered, for
such act may not be considered to have added to the victim’s
moral suffering or humiliation. (People vs. Carmina,
G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical
injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not
intended for the purpose.
NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and
not for escape.
REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the
walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for
their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater
audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity.
Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall,
roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to
effect ENTRANCE. If the wall, etc., is broken in order to get
out of the place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the
building Therefore, If the offender broke a window to enable
himself to reach a purse with money on the table near that
window, which he took while his body was outside of the building,
the crime of theft was attended by this aggravating circumstance.
NOTE: Breaking in is lawful in the following instances:
1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a door
or window of any building in which the person to be arrested
is or is reasonably believed to be;
2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break open any door
or window to execute the search warrant or liberate himself,
3. Replevin, Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court
Par. 20. That the crime be committed
(1) with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
(2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GROUPED IN THIS PARAGRAPH:
1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age:
Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent
practice resorted to by professional criminals to avail
themselves of minors taking advantage of their
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means:
Intended to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and flee
and abscond once the same is committed.
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused
purposely and deliberately used the motor vehicle in
going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the
effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape.
MEANING OF “or other similar means” Should be understood
as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient means
of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission
CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights
in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by
causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of
the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons.
In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive
proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were
inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily
to prolong physical suffering.
Cruelty cannot be presumed
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation
were being performed, this would also qualify the killing
to murder due to outraging of his corpse.
Ignominy involves moral suffering. Cruelty refers to
Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is
NO provision for aggravating circumstances of a similar or