Art.

14
Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
Scene 1:
Policeman Ural (inside the jail) punching a detention prisoner, Felix.
Scene 2:
Felix collapsed on the floor.
Scene 3:
Policeman Ural stepped on his body.
Scene 4:
Policeman Ural went out of the cell.
Scene 5:
He returned to the cell with a bottle and poured its contents on Felixs recumbent body. Then
he ignited it with a match and left the cell.
Scene 6:
Felix died.
Note:
Policeman Ural took advantage of his public position. He could not have maltreated Felix if
he was not a policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell
where Felix was confined. (people vs. Ural, G.R. No. L-30801, March 27, 1974)
The crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.
Scene 1:
In a tennis court, where a peace rally is being held. Mariano stabed Atty. Bello, former
governor of Ilocos Sur. Atty. Bello died.
Scene 2:
Leopoldo, the chief of police, filed in the justice of the Peace Court a complaint charging
Mariano with the crime of murder for the death of Atty. Bello.
Scene 3:
The fiscal filed an information charging Mariano with the crime of murder attended by the
qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and two aggravating circumstance of
treachery and contempt of or insult to public authorities.
Scene 4:
Marianos counsel to the judge: your honor, aggravating circumstance of contempt of or
insult to public authorities did not attend the commission of the crime.
Scene 5:

Judge: Your contention is wrong. Aggravating circumstance of contempt of or insult to public

authorities is present.
Note:
A public peace rally was going on at the place where the defendant stabbed Atty. Bello.
Many people were present. Among the public authorities present were Acting Provincial
Governor Villanueva, Mayor Querubin, Judge Quirino and municipal secretary Quindipan. All
these were seated on an elevated stage easily seen or viewable by the public. The place of
the rally and of the crime was a public plaza, directly opposite the municipal building of
Caoayan. The defendants denial that public authorities were there present cannot be
accepted. (People vs. Tenorio, G.R. L-15478, March 30, 1962)
Insult to age, rank, sex
Disregard of Rank
Scene 1:
Police officer Guillermo (In civilian clothing) approached Rodil.
Guillermo: I am Leutenant Guillermo. Is the gun tucked in your waist a licensed one?
Scene 2:
Rodil, instead of answering Guillermos question, moved one step backward and
attempted to draw his gun.
Scene 3:
Soldier Virgilio immediately grabbed Rodils gun and gave it to Guillermo.
Scene 4:
Guillermo, Rodil and Virgilio (Inside the restaurant).
While seated, Guillermo placed the gun on the table while writing in a piece of
coupon bon paper the receipt for the gun.
Scene 5:
Guillermo to Rodil: Sign this receipt for the gun.
Rodil: No, return the gun to me!
Scene 6:
Guillermo about to stand, suddenly Rodil pulled out a double-dagger and stabbed
Guillermo several times.
Note:
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it
is obvious that the victim, PC Lt. Masana identified himself as a PC officer to the
accused and therefore inferior both in rank and social status.
As explained by Justice Mariano Albert, then of the Court of Appeals, those generally
considered of high station in life, on account of their rank (as well as age or sex),
deserve to be respected. Therefore, whenever there is a difference in social condition

between the offender and the offended party, this aggravating circumstance
sometimes is present (Albert M.A. The Revised Penal Code Annotated, 1946 Ed.,
p.109). (People vs. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990)

Disregard of Age
Scene 1:
Alejandro arrived home drunk, looking for Lolita (his wife).
Alejandro: Lolita! Lolita!
Scene 2:
Alejandro (25 y/o) went to the house of Aquilio (father in law 58 y/o) looking for Lolita.
(knocking at the door)
Alejandro: Where is Lolita?!
Scene 3:
Aquilio: Lolita is not here.
Alejandro: Youre lying! Shes here!
Scene 4:
Aquilio: Shes not here! (Slams the door)
Scene 5:
Aquilio sleeping.
Alejandro was able to enter the house of Aquilio through the kitchen door. (carrying a
bolo)
Scene 6:
Alejandro stabbed Aquilio
Note:
The generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of age is considered present when the offended person, by reason
of his age, could be the father of the offender. This is obvious in this case. Not only
was Aquilio, by reason of his age, considered old enough to be the father of
Alejandro, he was also the latters father-in-law. (People vs. Bajar, G.R. No. 143817,
October 27, 2003)
Disregard of sex
Scene 1:
Joaquins father was killed by Cardo.
Scene 2:
Joaquin at his fathers grave.

Joaquin: I swear that I will seek revenge for your death father!
Scene 3:
Joaquin making a surveillance at Cardos family.
Cardo has 2 sons and 1 daughter. (Tjay, Bong, Adele).
Scene 4:
Joaquin, went to Cardos house and killed Adele.
Note: The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex must be taken into
consideration inasmuch as the victim is a woman. Unable to take revenge against the
killer of the relative who was already in prison, the accused selected and killed a
female relative of such killer.
The crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party.
Scene 1:
Leonila, taking care of her child in the house.
Scene 2:
An intruder (Ernesto) came in the house.
Ernesto: Hold up to!
Scene 3:
Leonila fearfully opened her cabinet where she kept her money while a foot-long
double bladed knife is poked at her neck.
Scene 4:
Leonila handed the cash to Ernesto.
Scene 5:
Ernesto: Give me more money or else I will rape you and kill you!
Leonila: I already gave you all of my money. Please have mercy on us! (crying)
Scene 6:
Ernesto raped her.
Note: Considering that the robbery with rape was committed in the domicile of the
victim without provocation on her part, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is
present. Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. (People vs. Belo, G.R. No.
109148, December 4, 1998)
The act be committed with abuse of confidence
Scene 1:

Vilma together with her eldest son Roberto went to her parents house in Marikina. She left
behind in their Antipolo house her other 5 children namely, Leonila, Marvie, Lotis, Marichu
and Edmar ages: 10, 8, 7, 6 and 1.
Vilma: Brother (Salvador), could you please fetch my kids in Antipolo?
Salvador: Sure!
Scene 2:
Salvador went to Antipolo.
Scene 3:
Salvador, upon arriving at Vilmas house in Antipolo at around 11:00 PM. He stayed there for
a night.
Scene 4:
At about 12:00 midnight, Salvador took off his clothes and placed himself on top of Leonila
and then forcibly inserted his organ in hers for a long time.
Note:
It is essential to show that confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal,
such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime,
the culprit taking advantage of the offended parties belief that the former would not abuse
said confidence.
In this case, the bare allegation that the victims mother asked the accused to fetch her
children from Antipolo to Marikina does not prove that she reposed such confidence in the
accused that he could have used to his advantage in committing the crime of rape. (People
vs. Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000)
The act be committed with obvious ungratefulness
Scene 1:
(In the jail) Basilio, one of the prisoners carrying bread ration for breakfast for his coinmates.
Scene 2:
Basilio outside the cell of Sigue-sigue sputnik gang to give them breakfast.
Scene 3:
The Police officer, opening the door of the cell of Sigue-sigue sputnik gang so that Basilio
can give the bread and coffee to them.
Basilio: Heres your bread and coffee!
Scene 4:
Upon opening the door, two of the prisoners rushed out from the cell and stabbed Basilio to
death.

Note: Aggravating circumstance of obvious ungratefulness was present as the victim was
suddenly attacked while in the act of giving the assailants their bread and coffee for
breakfast. Instead of being grateful to the victim, at least by doing him no harm, they took
advantage of his helplessness when his two arms were used for carrying their food, thus
preventing him from defending himself from the sudden attack. (People vs. Bautista, G.R.
No. L-38624, July 25, 1975)
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.
Scene 1:
At about 8:00pm Brigida (7 y/o) walking through a heavy rain, alone and without umbrella.
Scene 2:
While Brigida was passing by the Chapel, Carlos grabbed her hand.
Scene 3:
Carlos pulled her to the Chapel.
Scene 4:
In the Chapel, where it was dark the lights being off, the accused led her to the last pew,
pinned her down on the pew and removed her panty.
Scene 5:
Carlos removed his pants and immediately injected his organ to Brigida.
Note: Rape was committed, with the bravado of evil, in a place dedicated to prayer and
worship of the Supreme Being. The rape of the child took place in the chapel, a building
dedicated to and actively used for religious worship. The generic aggravating circumstance
of commission of the offense in a place dedicated to religious worship is present. (People vs.
De la Cruz, G.R. No. 75267, September 10, 1990)
That the crime be committed in the nighttime
Scene 1:
Leticia, a 13 y/o kid is sleeping in her room.
Scene 2:
At about 3:00 am she was awakened due to heavy rain.
Scene 3:
When she opened her eyes, she was surprised to see a man wearing briefs and carrying a
bolo.
Scene 4:
Man: Do you have money?
Leticia: I dont have money.
Scene 5:

Man: remove your clothes!

Leticia: No! (crying)
Scene 6:
The man raped her.
Note: Nighttime, according to Viada, is that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk
and ending at dawn. Our New Civil Code defines nights as from sunset to sunrise. When the
rapes were committed at 3:00 a.m., it was still nighttime. It is obvious that the accused
especially sought for the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime without
being recognized, aside from ensuring the unmolested escape. He chose to unleash his evil
deeds at the unholy hour of 3:00 a.m., taking advantage of the stillness of a sleeping world.
(People vs. Codilla, G.R. No. 100720-23, June 30, 1993)
That the crime be committed in an uninhabited place
Scene 1:
Emmanuel with his wife, Norma and 2-year-old daughter in a small nipa house.
Scene 2:
View of their house with two other houses which are 150 meters away. Their house cannot
be seen from the neighbors house because of many fruit trees and shrubs.
Scene 3:
Emmanuel and Norma fighting.
Emmanuel: Are you having an affair with Dodong?
Norma: No! were just friends!
Scene 4:
Emmanuel boxed Norma.
Scene 5:
Emmanuel hanged Norma in a jackfruit tree which caused her death.
Note: 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 the commission, there was
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the complex crime
of parricide with unintentional abortion 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. (People vs. Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994)
That the crime be committed by a band
Scene 1:
At around 12:30 midnight, the house of Anselmo was entered forcibly by Francisco, Gregorio,
Lauro and Silas by breaking the window. (They are carrying guns)
Scene 2:

(Inside the house) sleeping were Anselmo, Juana (in masters bedroom) and Ricardo (10 y/o)
(sleeping in his own room).
Scene 3:
Francisco forcibly pulled out Anselmo with Lauro and Gregorio on each side of Rollorata and
brought him to the kitchen.
Scene 4:
In the kitchen Anselmo was made to kneel on the floor.
Scene 5:
Anselmo was shot at the back by the accused Francisco causing his death.
Note:
In a prosecution for robbery with homicide, Francisco, Gregorio, Lauro and Silas broke the
window panes of Anselmos house and entered one after the other through the window
opening. All were armed. The accused killed Anselmo and robbed the family of some
personal belongings. The aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime by a
band was established it appearing that there were more than three armed malefactors who
acted together in the commission of the offense. (People vs. Escabarte, G.R. No. L-42964,
March 14, 1988)
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
Scene 1:
Davao is facing a revolt.
Scene 2:
Manuel, with 9 others planned to kill one of their superior officers, Lieutenant Goicuria.
Scene 3:
Manuel and his company received a notice of the proposed attack of the mutineers on June
6, 2016.
Scene 4:
Upon arrival of June 6, 2016, executed their plan of killing lieutenant Goicuria.
Note:
This shows the debased form of criminality on the part of the offender who, in the midst of
great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking
advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. (U.S. vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344, March 21,
1911)
That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity
Scene 1:
Joey and Joseph who are armed went upstairs and forced open the door of a house.

Scene 2:
Joey and Joseph dragged Jepoy downstairs.
Scene 3:
Joseph shot Jepoy to death.
Note:
In the qualifying aggravating circumstance of Aid of armed men, it is enough that there are
at least two persons who are armed. The actual aid of armed men is not necessary.
Psychological reliance on the aid of armed men is sufficient.
The accused is a recidivist
Scene 1:
Hernan and Rodolfo bailed out of jail for a pending case of Robbery.
Scene 2:
Hernan and Rodolfo in a farm, stealing 2 carabaos.
Scene 3:
They were apprehended by the police officer.
Scene 4:
In trial court, the judge held that aggravating circumstance of Recidivism is present.
Scene 5:
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Justice held that aggravating circumstance
of Recidivism is not present.
The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. 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 Code. The appellant was
merely convicted at the time the case at bar was being tried. It did not state that the
conviction was already final. (People vs. Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001)
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 lighter penalty
Scene 1:
(In the courtroom), Judge: You are guilty of swindling with a penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.
Scene 2:
John in jail.
Scene 3:
John after serving his sentence, is released from the jail.

Scene 4:
After 3 years He boxed Juan.
Scene 5:
(In the courtroom) Judge: You are guilty of Serious Physical Injuries with an aggravating
circumstance of Reiteracion.
Note: In his conviction for the crime of serious physical injuries, reiteracion or habituality
may be considered against him as a generic aggravating circumstance because at the time
of his trial for the second crime, he was previously punished for a crime to which the law
attaches an equal penalty.
That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
Scene 1:
Matthew: I want you to kill Mark this week. I will give you another P20,000 upon killing Mark.
(Gives P20,000)
Luke: Alright, sir! I will kill him this coming Friday.
Scene 2:
Luke eating in a carinderia.
Scene 3:
Mark (Riding in a motorcycle wearing helmet), shoot Luke.
Scene 4:
Luke died.
Note:
Price, reward or promise must be the sole motivating factor in the commission of the crime,
without which the crime would not have been committed.
The crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of
any other artifice involving great waste and ruin
Scene 1:
Edna (Maid): Maam can I go to the province this coming Sunday?
Virginia: Sige umuwi ka, pagdating mo maputi kana! Sumakay ka sa walis, pagdating mo
maputi ka na!
Scene 2:
Edna: (In her room talking to herself) Tsk! Sunugin ko bahay ninyo eh!
Scene 3:
Edna crumpled newspapers, lighted them with a lighter and threw them on top of the table
inside the house.

Scene 4:
Edna rode a Pedicab going to another street.
Scene 5:
The fire resulted in the destruction of house and death of Roberto and Virginia together with
their 4 children.
Note: When fire is used with the intent to kill a particular person who may be in a house and
that objective is attained by burning the building or edifice, the crime is murder only. (People
vs. Malngan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006)
Evident Premeditation
Scene 1:
Jeremiah: Asaraji will testify against you in the murder case.
Hussin: I must do something about it!
Scene 2:
Hussin: Planning to kill Asaraji. (talking to himself) On Friday, I will kill Asaraji. I must buy a
revolver tomorrow!
Scene 3:
Hussin went to the apartment of his friends, Dan and John.
Hussin: Wake up! We are going to the house of Asaraji. I need your assistance. I will kill him!
Dan and John: Lets go!
(In the court room), Asaraji failed to show up when he is about to testify.
Lawyer: Your honor, may we request to reset the hearing? We cannot contact our witness.
Scene 3:
After a month Asarajis body is found in the river.
Note: Hussin had planned to murder Asaraji in order that the latter might not testify against
the former in a murder case filed against him. The motive which led to the commission of
the crime is very clear as to him. Said motive did not come to his mind at the spur of the
moment. He deliberated on it until its very execution. The aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation may be taken into account against Hussin. (People vs. Talok, G. R. No.
45611, June 21, 1938)
That craft be employed
Scene 1:
(In the prisoner) Arnold pretending to be a prisoner in charge of bringing food to the cells.
Scene 2:
Arnold:
Entered into Brigade 3B.

Scene 3:
Upon entering Brigade 3B, Arnoled stabbed Noli to death.
Held:
In a prosecution for murder, craft was established beyond doubt since the accused
pretended to be rancheros, that is, prisoners in charge of bringing food to the cells to gain
entry into Brigade 3B and kill the deceased. It was by trickery that they gained entry into
Brigade 3B by holding on to a prison meal cart and pushing it towards Brigade 3B. (People
vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-16392, January 30, 1965)
That fraud be employed
Scene 1:
(In the house)
Kanor(stepfather): Where is your mom?
Nene: She went to the market.
Scene 2:
Kanor: Nene lets go to your godmothers house, she will give you your birthday present.
Nene: yehey!
Scene 3:
Kanor brought nene in another house.
Scene 4:
Kanor raped nene.
Note:
Fraud, which constituted deceit and manifested by insidious words and machinations, is
illustrated in the case of the offended partys stepfather who, taking advantage of the
absence of her mother, took the young girl away and told her she was to be taken to the
house of her godmother, but instead she was taken to another house where she was raped.
(People vs. Lor, G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984)
That Disguise be employed
Scene 1:
Rey, an assistant manager in a grocery putting in the vehicle the cash register.
Scene 2:
Rey in the vehicle to bring the money to the bank.
Scene 3:
About 50 meters away from the grocery, another vehicle blocked his way. A riding in tandem
(wearing mask) on his left side.
Scene 5:

The passenger of the motorcycle shot Ray 21 times until he dies.

Scene 6:
The riding in tandem stole the cash register in the vehicle.
Note:
Where a malefactor wore a mask to conceal his identity during the commission of the crime,
disguise is present and considered a generic aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Bermas,
G.R. Nos. 76416 & 94312, July 5, 1999)
That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken
the defense.
Scene 1:
Domingo 33 y/o saw Asuncion (his ex-live-in partner) with Maximo 63 y/o (holding hands).
Scene 2:
Domingo asked Asuncion.
Domingo: Is Maximo your new lover?
Asuncion: Yes!
Scene 3:
Domingo: I will kill Maximo!
Scene 4:
In a barrio fiesta, Domingo suddenly stabbed Maximo with a bolo.
Note:
The killing was attended by abuse of superior strength. The circumstance of abuse of
superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is considered
whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of him in the commission of the crime. As found by the trial
court, accused-appellant was a young, robust and healthy 33-year-old man, whereas, the
victim was a 63-year-old man. The wide age gap between the victim and the assailant who
was armed with a bolo supports the finding of the trial court that there was an abuse of
superior strength in the commission of the offense. (People vs. Molas, G.R. Nos. 97437-39,
February 5, 1993)
The act be committed with treachery
Scene 1:
Mark, eating fishballs with her daughter.
Scene 2:
A gunman targeting the back of the head of Mark.
Scene 3:

The gunman shot Mark from behind.

Note: Treachery is evident when the accused suddenly positioned himself at the back of the
unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him and, without any warning, promptly delivered
the fatal shots. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life and the danger that lurked
behind him. There was no was the victim could have defended himself, taken flight or
avoided the assault. (People vs. Herrera, G.r. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001)
That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to
the natural effects of the act
Scene 1:
Ralph tying up Jerome in a chair in a room.
Scene 2:
Ralph, brought Vanessa (Jeromes daughter) in same room.
Scene 3:
Ralph tied up Vanessa in the bed and removed her clothes.
Vanessa: Help!
Scene 4:
Ralph raping Vanessa in front of Jerome.
Vanessa: Help! Father!
Jerome: Stop it, Ralph!
Note: These facts clearly show that the accused deliberately wanted to further humiliate the
victim, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was
appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed or her
husband.
The crime be committed after an unlawful entry
Scene 1:
At around 12:00 midnight Sandra is sleeping in her room.
Scene 2:
A man broke the windows of Sandras living room.
Scene 3:
The man carrying a gun about to go inside Sandras room.
Scene 4:
The man shot Sandra to death.
Note:
Unlawful entry is present in a prosecution for murder since the accused admittedly
destroyed the glass blades of jalousies of a window in gaining entry into the house. There is

an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
(People vs. Galapia, G. R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978)
That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
be broken.
Scene 1:
Roman outside the house of Maria at around 3:00pm
Scene 2:
Roman saw a purse in the kitchen table.
Scene 3:
Roman broke the window.
Scene 4:
Roman reached the purse through the broken window.
Note:
Roman 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 the building. The crime of theft was
attended by this aggravating circumstance. Note that because of the phrase as a means to
the commission of a crime, it is not necessary that the offender should have entered the
building. What aggravates the liability of the offender is the breaking of a part of the building
as a means to the commission of the crime.
That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age
Scene 1:
Rico pointing his knife to a student.
Rico: Hold up to!
Scene 2:
The student giving his cellphone to Rico.
Scene 3:
Rico giving the cellphone to a 12-year-old kid.
Scene 4:
The kid ran away
The crime be committed by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar
means.
Scene 1:
Junior, driving a jeep. Pedro, his father seated beside him.
Scene 2:
Junior, bumped Antonio with the jeep.

Scene 3:
Pedro jumped from the jeep.
Scene 4:
Pedro stabbed Antonio on the neck twice.
Note: There was conspiracy between the accused father and son to commit the murder as
shown by the circumstance that immediately after Pedro Jr. had bumped the deceased with
the jeep he was driving, the accused father jumped from the jeep and with a blunt
instrument stabbed his victim twice on the neck. The defendants used a jeep and it
facilitated the commission of the crime. (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No. L-32995, April 30,
1984)
Cruelty
Scene 1:
4 men surrounding Eusebio.
Scene 2:
Ludring repeatedly hit Eusebio on the head and body using large stone. Eusebio lying on the
ground, unmoving.
Scene 3:
Ludring and Allan cut Eusebios head.
Scene 4:
Ludring and allan buried his body and head 100 meters away from each other.
Note:
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
(People vs. Valdez, G.R. 128105, January 24, 2001)
Art. 15
Relationship
Scene 1:
(In bedroom) Tina, a 7-year-old girl sleeping.
Scene 2:
Rowell went to his daughters room.
Scene 3:
Rowell touched Tinas legs.
Tina: Dad?
Rowell: shhhhh
Scene 4:

Rowell removed Tinas clothes.

Scene 5:
Rowell raped Tina.
Note:
Relationship is always aggravating in rape, such as when a father raped his minor daughter.
Intoxication
Scene 1:
Pedrito, Fernando, Felix, Rey and Arnel went to a disco.
Scene 2:
Pedrito, Rey and Arnel sleeping in the disco
Scene 3:
Fenando took out Pedrito and Arnel who was roused from sleep and led them to the tricycle.
Scene 4:
Fernando went back to the disco to bring Rey out.
Scene 5:
Pedrito and Arnel having an altercation.
Arnel: Is it true that it is you who killed my father?
Pedrito: Thats not true!
Scene 6:
Arnel shot Pedrito which caused his death.
Note: The general rule is that intoxication may be considered either as aggravating or
mitigating, depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime.
Intoxication is mitigating and therefore has the effect of decreasing the penalty if the
intoxication is not habitual or attendant to the plan to commit the contemplated crime. On
the other hand, when intoxication is habitual or done intentionally to embolden the
malefactor and facilitate the plan to commit the crime, it is considered as an aggravating
circumstance. (People vs. Bernal, G.R. Nos. 132791 & 140465-66, September 2, 2002)
Degree of instruction or education of the offender
Scene 1:
Ramon is charged with the crime of robbery with homicide.
Scene 2:
The judge found Ramon guilty of murder with the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and
sentenced to the penalty of death.
Scene 3:

When the decision was promulgated, Ramon put his thumbmark in a document attesting the
promulgation.
Scene 4:
The Solicitor General appealed.
Solicitor General: In the commission of the crime of murder, the mitigating circumstances of
lack of instruction and voluntary surrender should be considered.
Scene 5:
Justice: The fact that Orbista thumbmarked the document attesting of the promulgation of
the decision, a sign that he did not know how to write, is not sufficient to prove the existence
of alternative circumstance. Not illiteracy alone but also lack of sufficient intelligence are
necessary to invoke the benefit of this circumstance. A person able to sign his name but
otherwise so densely ignorant and of such low intelligence that he does not realize the full
consequences of a criminal act, may still be entitled to this mitigating circumstance. On the
other hand, another unable to write because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities,
may yet be highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert that he easily and ever
realizes the full significance of his acts, in which case he may not invoke this mitigating
circumstance in his favor.