1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances:
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 aggravating.

Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, they will only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.

Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use of poison.

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. MONTAƑEZ, 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.