Par. 16: That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

Basis: means and ways employed

Meaning of treachery

o People vs. Tiozon (p. 420): the offended party was not given opportunity to make a defense.o People vs. Rey: the attack was sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victim

an opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression.

Rules regarding treachery

Applicable only to crimes against person Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime- “to insure its execution” The mode of attack must be consciously adopted- tend directly and specially

o People vs. Parana (p. 421): the law does not require that the treacherous means insure the execution of the aggression or consummation of offense.

o People vs. Reyes: treachery can be characterized by frustrated and attempted murder

Treachery cannot be presumed.

o P. vs. Ardisa, P. vs. Narit, P. vs. Tiozon, P. vs. Lubreo (p. 422): suddenness of attacko U.S vs. Perdon, U.S vs. Panagilion: when manner in which the aggression was made is unknowno P. vs. Velaga: if the meeting of the victim and the assailant is accidentalo P. vs. Tiozon: when no witness is presentedo P. vs. Narit: the witness can’t provide the exact details, it is casual and not a planned oneo P. vs. Tugbo: if it is not the accused’ deliberate act of the will, the victim has the chance to defend

himself

Exceptions:

o U.S vs. Santos: grave of the woundso P. vs. Laggui: killing of a child is murder qualified by treachery even if the manner of the attack was

not showno P. vs. Retubado: an adult person illegally attacks a child which cause his death

The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.

the accused must make some preparation so that the execution of the crime is something that is impossible to retaliate

the mode of attack must be thought of by the offender and not because of unexpected turn of events

Other examples of treachery (pp. 424-427)

o P. vs. Tamani: the victim did not expect the assault, the assailant deliberately employed a mode of execution directly and specially to insure the consummation of the killing, the victim had no chance to defend himself

o P. vs. Mori: deliberate and surprise attack, no opportunity for defenseo P. vs. Ricohermoso: assailants insure the assassination of the deceased and no harm is inflicted on

them

o P. vs. Zapatero: the assailant employed a mode of execution that insured the consummation of the unsuspecting victim, no harm done to himself

o P. vs. Clementer: the victim was helplesso P. vs. Sangalang: the victim was unarmed and defenseless and he is not expecting the assault, he

did not even made an immediate provocationo P. vs. Manangan: the crime was executed at night , it was in the form of ambusho P. vs. Ong: the victim’s hands were well-tied and he could not defend himselfo P. vs. Pajenado: sudden interception on the drunk and unarmed victim while he was on his way to

his houseo P. vs. Palencia: deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack; the wounds are fatalo P. vs. Toribio: the victim was not in the position to defend himself from the firing of the assailanto P. vs. Clamor: while riding tandem on a motorcycle, the accused suddenly shot the victimo P. vs. Lubreo: sudden and unexpected multiple hacking of boloo P. vs. Lacao: even the acts were independently performed on the accused’ individual initiatives

(pp. 428-30)

o P. vs. Ramolete: when the victim tried to escape, the accused still shoot himo P. vs. Cruz: when the appellant chased the victimo P. vs. Macalisang: deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack; without any form of warning and no

opportunity for the victim to defend or repel the initial assaulto

When treachery is not present (pp. 427-428)

o P. vs. Ybanez: absence of wounds, deliberate and surprise attack; preceded by an altercationo P. vs. Manzano: two gunshots serve as ominous warning; the victim was first mauledo P. vs. Cunanan: shouts and gunshots which shows the hostile intentions of the accused and his

companions

When treachery cannot be considered (pp. 428)

o P. vs. Macaso: unplanned, sudden atack due to the victim’s stinging provocationo U.S vs. Balagtas: no proof that the death of the victim was due to meditation, calculation or

treacheryo P. vs. Cadag: if the decision to kill was sudden and purely incidentalo P. vs. Tumaob: it is not sufficient that it is a sudden and unexpected, the attack must be purposely

adopted by the accusedo P. vs. Macalinsang: the form of attack must deliberately chosen by the accusedo P. vs. Caldito: the means, method or form of the attack must be deliberately adopted by the

appellant

That the mode of attack was consciously adopted may be inferred from the circumstances (pp. 429-450)

o P. vs. Lunar: the victim is helpless and defenseless because three accused surrounded him and inflict serious stab wounds which resulted to his death

o P. vs. Jaravata: the accused hid and he approached the victim from behind and eventually shot him when he turned around

o P.vs. Elizaga: showering the house with bullets in the nighto P. vs. Guevarra: the accused is well-hidden when he shot the unarmed and unaware victimo P. vs. Dadis: it was not treachery because the defendant did not purposely take advantage of the

circumstance to kill the victim, he was scared

o P. vs. Hernandez: repeatedly stab the defenseless and unsuspecting victim who was at that time answering a call of nature

o P. vs. Badilla: sudden attack which deprived the unarmed victim to run or fight back, the assailant did not suffer any injuries

Note: When the meeting between the accused and the victim is casual and the attack impulsively done, there is no treachery (P. vs. Calinawan, P. Diaz, P. vs. Bacho and P. vs. Velaga, Jr., p. 431)

Attacks showing intention to eliminate risk (pp.432- 435)

victim asleep; half-awake or just awakened; grappling or being held attack from behind

with a firearmo P. vs. Acosta and P. vs. Marmita: behind without warningo P. vs. Carmina: even forewarned, he was shot in the back while he was entirely defenselesso P. vs. IAC: the accused and the victim knew each other personally so the latter did not

expected any sense of danger with a bladed weapon ( P. vs. Delgado and P. vs. Melgar) other modes of armed attack (P. vs. de Mesa, P. vs. Dollantes, P. vs. Ferrera, P. vs. Pecato, P. vs. IAC, P. vs.

Rendora, P. vs. Mukung, P. vs. Noble): the offenders attacked the victims while the latter were not in a position to make a defense; hence they purposely adopted certain means, methods or forms of attack to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves.

Requisites of treachery at the time of the attack, the victim was not in position to defend himself; the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him

The victim was not in position to defend himself (pp. 436-439)

o P. vs. Berzuela: victims were made to lie down, their hands tied at the backo P. vs. Jakosalem: victim was shot while blindfoldedo P. vs. Espinosa: he was still pursued when he tried to escapeo P. vs. Gapasin: the victim was beaten to deatho P. vs. Masilang: the assailants strangled the victim’s neck with a piece of wireo P. vs. Diaz: the victim was ambushed and shot sidewiseo P. vs. Bayocot: the victim had no time to defend herselfo P. vs. Munoz: taken by surprise, no chance to resisto P. vs. Acaya: the victim’s totally unpreparedo P. vs. Egaras: unarmed and unsuspecting victims were ambushed in the darko P. vs. Bravante: attack was sudden, no opportunity to defend himself

Note: There is no treachery when the victim was already defending himself (P. vs. Diva and P. vs. Butler)

o P. vs. Tilos: the defendant took advantage of the relative confusion created by the shower on the crowd so that his act and identity would not be detected, thus facilitating well his escape

Treachery does not connote element of surprise alone (P. vs. Casalme: absence of defense, P. vs. Pantoja: absence of warning)

Mere sudden and unexpected attack does not necessarily give rise to treachery: done on impulse, reaction to an actual or imagined provocation by the victim

When the accused gave the deceased a chance to prepare, there was no treachery (P. vs. Visagar)No treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning: if the attack was frank and made face to

face before starting the agression (P. vs Luna, p. 440)

Calling attention of the victim is not necessarily a warning: especially if the accused is insuring if he was shooting the correct person (P. vs. Magdueno)

No treachery where shooting us preceded by heated discussion (P. vs. Gonzales, P. vs. Gupo: boxing incident especially if the victim has companions who would insure his safety, P. vs. Rillorta, P. vs. Manlapaz: the victim provoked the assailant)

Killing unarmed victim whose hands are upraised is committed with treachery (P. vs. Barba, P. vs. Castro: due to fright, P. vs. Justie: despite of the pleadings)

Killing a woman asking for mercy is committed with treachery (P. vs. Dagundong)

There is treachery in killing a child (U.S vs. Oro, P. vs. Retubado, P. vs. Valerio, U.S vs. Lansangan, U.S vs. Bal, P. vs. Ganohon)

Intent to kill is not necessary in a murder with treachery (P. vs. Cagoco and U.S vs. Burns)

Treachery may exist even the attack is face to face (U.S vs. Cornejo: as long as it is not preceded by a dispute and the offended party is unprepared to defend himself, P. vs. Noble, P. vs. Cuadra: sudden and unexpected attack, P. vs. Liston: surprise shot, P. s. Solares: victim is completely helpless, P. vs. Paras: deliberate and conscious mode attack to insure the commission of the crime without risk on their part if ever the victim will defend himself)

Flashing the beam of a flashlight on the face of the victim (P. s. Pngcol: though frontal, the victim might defend himself)

Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence (P. vs. Santos and P. vs. Tiozon: narration of facts is necessary)

Attack from behind is not always alevosia (P. vs. Baldos: such mode of attack must be consciously adopted, P. vs. Ablao: should not be drawn by mere inference, P. vs. Bacho and P. vs. Besana, Jr.)

Must treachery be present in the beginning of the assault? It depends. (pp. 445-448)

o U.S vs. Balagtas (pp. 445-446): treacherous acts must be present and preceded the commencement of the attack which caused the injury complained of

o P. vs. Tapeno: if it is an aftermath of mauling, kicking and boxing incident, there’s no treachery.o U.S vs. Baluyot: no treachery- inception of aggression, treachery- when there was a break in the

continuity of the aggression and when the victim is defenseless at the time of the fatal wound was inflicted; treachery- if the crime is consummated

Note: period of interruption- the accused could be able to think and even prepare a method or form of attack that would consummate the crime without risking himself.

o P. vs. Canete: treachery- if the victim was first seized and bound and then killed; the assault was not characterized by alevosia in its inception and the aggression was continuous, such offense was homicide and not murder

o P. vs. Peje: no treachery- mere continuation of the assault, no appreciable time which intervenes the delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot

o P. vs. Clemente: no treachery- merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit, no intention to ensure the safety of the attackers

Summary of the ruleso P. vs. Canete: when the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of

the assaulto U.S vs. Baluyot: when there was an interruption, sufficient treachery was present at the

moment the fatal blow was given

In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was the same person whom the accused intended to kill (P. vs. Guevarra, P. vs. Trinidad, P. vs. Mabug-at, P. vs. Andaya: rule- it is impossible for the intended victim or actual victim to defend himself against the aggression)

When treachery is not to be considered as to the principal by induction (U.S vs. Gamao: it will aggravate the liability of the actual killer only as based in Art. 62)

Treachery, abuse of superior strength, and means employed to weaken the defense, distinguished (P. vs. Ducusin and P. vs. Tumaob: treachery- the offended party is hard to resist the means, methods or forms of attack employed by the offender, abuse of superior strength- does not employ means but only took advantage of his superior strength, means employed to weaken the defense- the employed means only materially weakens the resisting power of the offended party)

When there is a conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders (P. vs. Carandang, Art. 62 par. 4: those persons who have knowledge, cooperation exists at the time of execution)

The mastermind should have the knowledge of the employment of treachery if he was not present when the crime was committed (P. vs. Pareja, p. 450)

If the intervention of other persons did not directly and especially insure the execution of the crime without the risk of the accused, there is no treachery (P. vs. Julipa, P. vs. Mobe: his freedom of movement was restrained)

Inherent in Treachery Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength are absorbed or inherent in treason by

killings (P. vs. Racaza, p. 451) abuse of superior strength (P. vs. Siaotong, U.S vs. Estopia, U.S vs. Oro, P. vs. Ampo-an, P. vs.

Manzanares, P. vs. Molato, P. vs. Renejane) aid of armed men, by a band (P. vs. Mori, P. vs. Sangalang, P. vs. Sespane, P. vs. Ferrera, P. vs. Sudoy) means to weaken defense Nighttime (P. vs. Corpuz and P. vs. Balagtas) Craft (P. vs. Malig: to insure the commission of the crime without any risk to the culprits, P. vs. Daos, P.

vs. San Pedro: no treachery- facilitate the taking of a keep in the robbery scheme as planned by the culprits, p. 453)

Age and sex (P. vs. Limaco: regardless of age or sex, P. vs. Gervacio) Murder by poisoning (P. vs. Caliso)

o P. vs. Piring (p. 454)o P. vs. Ruzol: dwelling is not included in treacheryo P. vs. Lawas: defenseless condition of victims is included in the abuse of superior strength, not

treacheryo P. vs. Wong: treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation

Par 17: That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act

Basis: means employed

Ignominy: pertains to moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy (abuse) to the material injury cause by the crime.

Applicable to crimes against the following:

Chastity Physical injuries (Art. 265, par. 2) Grave coercion (P. vs. Cantong: embraced and kissed the offended party in the presence of many persons,

thus making the it more humiliating) Murder (U.S vs. de Leon: when before he was killed, he was forced by the accused to kneel in front of his

house servants)

That means be employed

o P. vs. Torrefiel, et. al (p. 456): augmenting the crime through increasing the pain and adding ignominy

That xxx circumstances be brought about (p. 456)

o U.S vs. Iglesia: raping a married woman in the presence of her husband, P. vs. Soriano: alleged husband, U.S vs. Casanas: betrothed, U.S vs. Camiloy: successively raped, P. vs. Detuya: was raped in the presence of her husband and the other successively raped, P. vs. Saylan: using dog style of sexual intercourse, P. vs. Mongado: when the rape was done after the husband was killed, no ignominy

o P. vs. Fernando: compelling an old woman to confess to the theft of clothes, maltreating her and taking of her drawers which puts her to shame (grave coercion)

Which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act (p. 457)o P. vs. Jose: letting the offended party exhibit her complete nakedness before raping her, P. vs.

Bumidang: the accused used flashlight to examined the genital of the victims before ravishing her in the presence of his old father

o P. vs. Nierra: the accused held her hair, tilt her face, insert a muzzle of his pistol in her mouth and fired ito P. vs. Balondo and P. vs. Ferrera: no ignominy- slicing and taking the flesh from the different body parts

of the victim after killing hero P. vs. Carmina: no ignominy- when the victim was already deado P. vs. Pantoja: no ignominy- shooting a prostrate body

No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife (U.S vs. Abaigar, p. 458)

Rape as ignominy in robbery with homicide (p. VS. Racaza: rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain)

Par. 18: That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry

Basis: means and ways

Meaning of unlawful entry: when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose

To effect entrance, not for escape (P. vs. Sunga): unlawful- entering through the window, not unlawful- making an entry thru the broken door)

Reason for aggravation: to guard for their property and provide for their personality safety- shows a greater perversity, audacity

Application of this circumstance

rape committed in a house after an entry through the window murder robbery in violence against or intimidation of persons robbery with force (Art. 299, par. And Art. 302) robbery with unlawful entry

Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in murders committed in a dwelling: 2 aggravating circumstances: climbing through the window and once inside, murdered certain persons in the dwelling (P. vs. Barruga, pp. 459- 460)

Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to dwelling : when a private individual shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s will and may be committed by means of violence (Art. 280), U.S vs. Barberan: entry in the window- integral part of crime of trespassing

Par. 19: That as means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken

Basis: means and ways

o U.S vs. Matanug (p. 460): cutting the ropes at the rear end of a field tent then killing two soldiers inside the tent- aggravating circumstance of forcible entry

Ás means to the commission of the crime: entry in the building is not necessary; the breaking part of the building aggravates the liability of the offender, P. vs. Capillas: breaking the door must be utilized, not mere breaking of the shutters and the framing of the door to insure the elements of surprise

To effect entrance only: breaking a part of the building is inherent in robbery with force, thus it is not aggravating in the said crime

When breaking of door or window is lawful: when an arresting officer, after announcing his authority and purpose, may break into any building if the person to be arrested refused admittance (Rule 113, Sec. 11), an arresting officer can break open any part of a house just to execute the warrant (Rule 126, Sec. 7)

Par. 20: That the crime be committed 1. With the aid of the persons under 15 years of age or by means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar means.

Basis: means and ways employed

Two different aggravating circumstances in par. 20: 1. taking advantage in minor’s irresponsibility, counteracting great facilities to commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed

With the aid of persons under the 15 years of age: the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with the aid of person under 15 years of age should be taken into account against the person who commanded such to commit it.

By means of motor vehicles (P. vs. Espejo: even it is used as means for the flight or concealment of the offender, P. vs. Cuadra, P. vs. Bardon, P. vs. Munoz, P. vs. Gracia: no aggravating circumstance- if the use of vehicle is only incidental, P. vs. Mil: not aggravating- if the meeting of the second victim is incidental)

Estafa, which is committed by means of deceit or abuse of confidence, cannot be committed by means of motor vehicle (P. vs. Bagtas, p. 464)

Theft, which is committed by merely taking personal property which need not be carried away, cannot be committed by means of motor vehicles (P. vs. Real)

Examples of crimes committed by means of motor vehicle (pp. 464-465)

Forcible abduction Truck was used in carrying away articles from the scene of the theft to the place they were sold (P. vs.

Arabia), robbery with a homicide where a motor vehicle was used in transporting the accused (P. vs. Valeriano)

Aggravating- Even they rode voluntarily in the jeepney but were lured and taken to the place where they were killed (P. vs. dela Cruz)

Fetching and luring the deceased through jeep (P. vs. Atitiw) Hiring a taxi (P. vs. Marasigan) Using a motor vehicle to insure the success of nefarious enterprise (P. vs. Jaranilla) Trailing the victim’s car, the baggage of the compartment of accused’ car contains pick and shovel (P. vs.

Ong)

Or other similar means

Motorized vehicles, eg. automobile or airplane*bicycle- no aggravating circumstance

Par. 21: That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission

Basis: ways employed

Cruelty: enjoys and delights in making his victim to suffer (P. vs. Dayug), prolonging the moral and physical pain of the victim (P. vs. Llamera), sadistic pleasure and satisfaction of the victim (P. vs. Luna and P. vs. Ong)

Requisites of Cruelty:

The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong; The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

Be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong: deliberate intention to prolong victim’s suffering, no cruelty- where the purpose is to ensure the death of victim (U.S vs. Gasal, U.S vs. Tan Corteso and P. vs. Llamera), and the victim was drowned in the sea after stabbing him (P. vs. Luna), victim was buried after being stabbed (P. vs. Ong), kicking the victim to verify if he is still alive (P. vs. Mil)

Other wrong not necessary for its commission: no cruelty- if striking the gun is not necessary to the commission of the crime of robbery

Cruelty refers to the prolonging of victim’s physical suffering purposely intended by the offender (P. vs. Dayug, P. vs. Llamera): cruelty cannot be presumed (P. vs. Jimenez)

Cruelty considered in murder by burning mouth of child (U.S vs. Oro, p. 467) and extracting victim’s eye and stuffing mouth with mud (P. vs. Mariquina)

Cruelty is not sufficient consider when the offender inflict various successive wounds (pp. 468-469)

No cruelty when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead (P. vs. Bersabal, P. vs. Clamania, P. vs. Curiano, P. vs. Pacris) - there must be a positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive

Ignominy vs. cruelty-moral suffering - physical suffering

Rapes, robbery and other forms of cruelties are aggravating circumstances of ignominy and cruelty in treason (P. vs. Racaza)

Rape is aggravating in robbery with homicide (P. vs. Basca), and murder (P. vs. Laspardas).

Aggravating circumstances peculiar to certain felonies Violation of domicile (Art. 128, par. 2) Interruption of religious worships (Art. 132, par. 2) Direct assault with a weapon or intended to a public officer or employee (Art. 148) Slavery or immoral trafficking (Art. 272, par. 2) Grave writings either through writing or a middleman (Art. 282) Robbery with violence against or intimidations of persons (Art. 295) Robbery with the use of force upon things (Art. 299)