On
Murder

ART.248

Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. 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.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

ELEMENTS:
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. 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.

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
- 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.

Bar Exam Question (2005)

Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)

Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of "shabu" at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes murder because the commission of a crime under the influence of prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Murder (1999)

The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died because of the loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer:

The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, "not intending to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)

Alternative Answer:

The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting the victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of such act although different from what he intended. And since such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)

a. Define murder. b. What are the elements of the crime? 

Suggested Answer:

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not been attended by any of the following circumstances:

1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;

4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;

5. With evident

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting premeditation; the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Suggested Answer:

(b) The elements of murder are: 

(1) that a person was unlawfully killed; 
(2) that such killing was attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; 
(3) that the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and 
(4) that the accused killed the victim.

Bar Exam Question (1996)

Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)

Fidel and Fred harbored a long-standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain.

Suggested Answer:

Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248, RPC, the killing being qualified by evident premeditation. This is due to the long-standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim's refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her. In People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)

A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit? 

Suggested Answer:

A committed the following crimes:

(1) HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law wife who is not legally considered a "spouse".

(2) INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255, RPC), However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.

(3) PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.

(4) MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise.

Bar Exam Question (2001)

Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)

Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten-year-old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. 

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate. As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's
10-year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he could have given to the victims.

Bar Exam Question (1995)

Murder; Treachery (1995)

On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully.

Suggested Answer:

All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.

Bar Exam Question (2004)

Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)

PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. 

Suggested Answer:

No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.