DWELLING aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the

offended party if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his
house.

US vs RAMOS et al., (G.R. No. 539, April 1, 1902)

Facts:
The court below classified the facts as constituting the crime of murder, and stated that the guilt of the accused as
principals was proven, and that in the commission of the crime aggravating circumstance No. 3 of Article 14 was present — that
is, the commission of the crime in the dwelling house of the injured person.

From the testimony of Luisa Macaraeg, the daughter of the deceased, the most important witness for the prosecution, it
may be deduced that Macaraeg was attacked and wounded outside his house. She says that the accused called him out upon the
deceitful pretext that they wanted to speak to him, and that, he having come down, they attacked him with the bolos they were
carrying, inflicting upon him five wounds and leaving him stretched on the ground. This being so, and it not having been
demonstrated that the place where the attack was made — it certainly was not in the house, which the accused did not enter —
was connected with the house as an integral part thereof, it follows that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the
crime in the dwelling of the offended party can not properly be considered.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the injured person
is present.

Held:
No. What aggravates the commission in one’s dwelling are the following: 1.) The abuse of confidence which the
offended party reposed in 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.

The fact that the deceased was called down from his house and attacked by the descendants was certainly the attack
was not made in the house but in the vicinity thereof.

Hence, the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the injured person is not
present.

PEOPLE vs AGONCILLO (G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001)

Facts:
Rosalyn P. Salvador, 15 years old, single, student and a resident of Barangay Napti, Batan, Aklan, testified that
she is the victim in this case; that she is 14 years old at the time of rape, having (sic) born on August 22, 1982; that in the
evening of July 2, 1997, her father and mother went to the river to catch fish; that her only companions in their house
during that night were her three (3) younger brothers, namely: Julie (8 years old), Cris (10 years old) and Victor (13 years
old); that they went to bed at around 8:00 P.M.; that at around 11:00 P.M., she roused to look at their wall clock if it is
already time to prepare their breakfast; that suddenly, somebody covered her mouth and told her not to shout or else, he
will cut off her head; that the said person was armed with a scythe; that she was then dragged to the banana plantation
where she was ordered to lie on the ground and not to shout under threat that if she will not obey, he will sickle her neck;
that the said person then started to kiss her; that because of the frequent flashes of light in the sky (caused by lightning),
she was able to recognize that person as the herein Gener Agoncillo, the accused; that she knows the accused since the
latter was always passing near their house; that the accused kissed her lips and vagina; that he spread her legs, placed
himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina; that because the accused found it difficult to insert his
penis into her vagina, he instead inserted his finger until such time that he was able to insert his penis; that the accused
then pushed and pulled his penis in her vagina; that it was painful; that after several minutes, the accused stood up and
wiped his sweat; that thereafter, she was accompanied by the accused up to the bamboo plantation and warned her that he
will kill them all if she will tell her parents on what happened to her.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is
present.

Held:
No. The fact that the accused dragged the victim to the banana plantation where the victim was raped; that the said
place is around 30 meters away from the house of the victim, the Supreme Court ruled that considering that the victim was not
raped in her home, therefor dwelling cannot be appreciated.

Hence, the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is not present.

PEOPLE VS TAÑO (G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000)

Facts:
 On November 6, 1997, at around 7:30 p.m., Amy de Guzman (Amy) was tending a Video Rental Shop owned by her
employer and cousin, Ana Marinay (Ana) located at 153 Loreto Street, Morning Breeze [S]ubdivision, Caloocan City, accused-
appellant Alexander Taño, a relative of Ana's husband Gerry Marinay (Gerry), arrived at said shop. Alexander Taño then asked
Amy about the time when Gerry would be coming home, to which she replied, 10:00 p.m. He then asked about the time when
Ana would be coming home and Amy replied that she did not know.
Thereafter, but still on the same date, Alexander Taño kept on going in and out of the Video Shop, and on the last time
that he went inside said shop, he jumped over the counter of the shop to where Amy was and seized the latter by placing one of
his arms around Amy['s] neck, while his other hand held a knife which he poked at her neck.
Terrified by the attack, Amy started shouting for help but Alexander Taño increased the volume of a karaoke which
was on at the time to drown Amy's cries for help.
Alexander Taño then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where, at knife point, he ordered the latter to undress and
he thereafter started raping her.
However, while Alexander Taño was raping Amy, somebody knocked at the door of the shop prompting the former to
stop what he was doing and ordered Amy to put on her clothes.
Alexander Taño then directed Amy to go upstairs to the second floor of the shop to change clothes as he will be taking
her with him. But suddenly thereafter, Taño pulled her down and punched her in the stomach thrice causing her to lose her
balance. Taño then started cursing her and again placed himself on top of her while poking a knife at her neck. Amy then
pleaded with Taño to just take anything inside the shop and to spare her life, to which Taño replied "no, I will not leave you
here alive.".
But after a while and upon Amy's pleading, Taño put down his knife and while he was kissing Amy, the latter got hold
of the knife which she surreptitiously concealed under the stairs.
Therafter, Taño became violent again and banged Amy's head on the wall causing the latter to lose consciousness.
When she regained consciousness she found herself and Taño inside the toilet of the shop and the latter again banged her head,
this time on the toilet bowl, several times causing Amy to again lose consciousness.
Thereafter, Taño went upstairs and looted the place of valuables belonging to Amy's employer, Ana. Amy, herself lost
her ring, bracelet and wristwatch during the incident in question.
At about 9:00 o'clock p.m. of the same day, Amy's employer Ana arrived and found the shop in disarray with the
"karaoke" in full volume. After turning off the "karaoke["], Ana proceeded to the toilet where she found Amy bathed in blood.
Ana immediately sought the help of Barangay officials of the place and Amy was brought to the "MCU" Hospital
where she was initially treated of her injuries. Amy was, later on, transferred to Jose P. Reyes Memorial Medical Center
(JPRMMC) where she was confined for four (4) days.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the crime in the dwelling of the victim is
present.

Held:
No. The evidence shows that the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence.

Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

Article 14 No. 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
 Abuse of confidence
- This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who latter abuses
such trust by committing the crime.
Requisites:
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.

US vs TORRIDA (G.R. No. 7450, 7451 and 7452, September 18, 1912)

Facts:
The appellant Florencio Torrida shortly after entering upon his duties as councilman of the town of Aparri, Province of
Cagayan, gave, in the month of October, 1910, directions to his subordinates that the death of all large animals must be reported
by the owners to him as councilman. These orders were conveyed to the people as directed. Damaso Rabilas lost one carabao,
Bonifacio Rante one, Santiago Rante two, and Felipe Rante one (those of Santiago and Felipe were included in the same
complaint. The respective owners of these animals reported their death to the appellant. Upon the receipt of this information the
appellant informed these owners that they must pay a fine of P5 for each animal, these fees to be turned into the municipality by
him. The owners, believing that the municipality had provided for the payment of such fines, turned over to the appellant five
pesos for each animal that died. There was no provision whatever made by the municipality or any other entity for the
imposition of such fines. These facts clearly constitute the crime of estafa as defined and penalized in paragraph 1, article 535,
in relation with paragraphs 1, article 534, Penal Code.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
No. There is nothing to show that the crimes were committed with abuse of confidence. There were no confidential
relations between the appellant and the injured parties. The mere fact that people had reposed in the appellant sufficient
confidence to elect him to a public office does not constitute the aggravating circumstance set forth in number 10. In order to
constitute this circumstance the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal and such as would give the
accused person some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act.

Therefore, abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

PEOPLE vs ALQUEZA (G.R. No. L-28995, August 4, 1928

Facts:
Counsel for the defense finds signs of improbability in the accused having committed the crime in a small house at a
time when his own wife was in the same house; in the fact that the offended party was not physically examined until after thirty-
eight days from the occurrence, and in not offering resistance. But, as a matter of fact, at the time of the incident the accused's
wife, a sickly woman, was in one of the kitchens of the house, some 7 varas distant, according to the accused himself, from the
room where the act took place, or some 6 meters, according to the mother of the offended party, the latter being at that time a
girl of 14 years of age, and physically weak.

With these circumstances in his favor, the accused though not to attract his wife's attention, who at that time was
cooking, and for greater safety, put a piece of cloth into the offended party's mouth, that the latter might not be able to scream.

As regards the resistance offered by the offended party, it appears from the record that she did resist. After the offended
party had verbally and actively refused the accused's illicit proposal, was thrown to the floor, held there and gagged with a piece
of cloth; she was weeping, and as soon as her mother arrived she complained of the outrage.

We find the evidence sufficient and the facts proven constitute the crime of rape.

The lower court took into account the abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.

Held:
No. We take it that in this particular case the fact that the accused lived in the same house as the offended party is not
enough, in itself, to hold that there is such aggravating circumstance, for after all, that house did not belong to the offended
party. As this court said in the case of United States vs. Cabaya Cruz (4 Phil., 252), it might serve to describe the accused's
conduct as disgraceful, but not as an abuse of confidence, for which it is required to show what was the confidence reposed in
the accused, and that it facilitated the commission of the crime, in order that it might be judged whether or not he had abused
such confidence.

PEOPLE vs LOMERIO (G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000)

Facts:
On May 23, 1993, Vilma Bunagan, together with her eldest son Roberto, went to her parents' house at Tuazon St.,
Marikina, Metro Manila to bring her two-year-old son who was sick. She left behind in their Antipolo house her other five
children, namely, LEONILA, Marvie, Lotis, Marichu and Edmar, who were the ages 10, 8, 7, 6 and 1, respectively.

Worried that something bad could happen to her children while unattended by an adult companion, because her
husband Mario was staying in Divisoria and working as a mason, Vilma instructed Roberto to fetch his younger brother and
sisters from Antipolo. Roberto, however, failed to do so as he went for an interview for a job on the same day.

At about 8:00 p.m., Vilma asked her youngest brother, Salvador Lomerio (SALVADOR), to fetch the children from
Antipolo and bring them to Marikina. SALVADOR agreed and left that night for Antipolo in the company of Roberto.
SALVADOR and Roberto arrived at the house in Antipolo at about 11:00 p.m. Roberto left behind SALVADOR who stayed
for the night. LEONILA was awakened when the two arrived. LEONILA opened the door for SALVADOR and thereafter went
back to sleep. SALVADOR stayed in the sala smoking cigarettes while LEONILA and her brother and sisters were lying down.

Later, SALVADOR took off his clothes and went near LEONILA. SALVADOR then got LEONILA's hands and
pinned her down. After taking off her shorts and panty, SALVADOR placed himself on top of LEONILA and then forcibly
inserted his organ in hers for a long time. LEONILA was hurting. All she could do was cry. SALVADOR went back to the sala
and slept.
Again, at about 12:00 midnight of the same date, Salvador went back to LEONILA and raped her for the second time.
SALVADOR threatened LEONILA that he would kill all of them if she would report the rapes to anybody. Marvie was
likewise raped by SALVADOR in the early morning of the following day. As if nothing untoward happened, Salvador
instructed the children to dress up so they could go to Tuazon in Marikina and join their mother.

Vilma Bunagan, the mother of LEONILA testified that she learned of the rape on March 25, 1993 from a "kumare",
Anita Fernandez who heard of it from a certain Totoy, who is one of the playmates of Marvie, sister of LEONILA. When Vilma
asked LEONILA, the latter confirmed that SALVADOR abused her. Vilma then brought Marvie and LEONILA to Camp
Crame to have the two girls examined after which, she filed a complaint against SALVADOR with the Cogeo Police Station.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.
Held:
No. As to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, 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.36 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.37 In this case, the bare allegation that the victim's
mother asked SALVADOR to fetch her children from Antipolo to Marikina does not prove that she reposed such confidence in
SALVADOR that he could have used to his advantage in committing the crime.

Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is not present.

US vs SOTO (G.R. No. L-5424, October 27, 1909)

Facts:
On the night of the 20th of August, 1906, Prudencio Soto went next door to the house of Saturnino Nicanor, their
houses being situated in the town of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, and requested the latter to permit his daughter Clara Nicanor, 16
years of age, to sleep in his house in order to accompany his wife who was ill, while he, Soto, spent the night away from home
in a gambling house; Saturnino complied with Soto's request and allowed his daughter to go to his neighbor's house to stay with
the latter's wife.
Late that night the girl Clara woke up and asked Soto's wife to strike a light but the latter did not answer; thereupon
Soto approached the girl, embraced her, and tried to raise her skirt and, as she had gotten up and was sitting on the bed
endeavored to pull her down onto the floor; and as, in spite of her resistance and opposition, her aggressor persisted in his
endeavor to lie with her and would not let her go, she cried out for help, whereupon Prudencio released her. Then the girl, as
soon as she managed to find a box of matches, struck a light and from the sala of the house where she had been lying with the
sick woman, saw her aggressor in the adjoining room in his undershirt, He, acknowledging his guilt, begged her to pardon him;
but the injured girl after saying to the sick woman, the wife of the accused, who asked her what had happened, "so this is the
way you reward me for keeping you company," left the house, and weeping and with tumbled hair went to her own house where
she informed her father of what had occurred. The latter at once went to the house of the aggressor who, however, was no
longer there. Finding her husband, to which she replied that he had just left. Next morning the girl appeared before the justice of
the peace court and complained of the act committed by the accused.
From the facts above stated it is deduced that the crime of attempted rape was actually committed on the person of
Clara Nicanor, a girl about 16 years of age, late at night, and at the time when the said girl, with her father's permission was in
the house of the accused, by request of the latter that she stay with his wife who was sick, as he had to be away from his house
on the night in question.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.

Held:
Yes. Prudencio Soto abused the confidence that Saturnino Nicanor had in him when he permitted his daughter, the
aggrieved girl, to sleep that night in the house of the accused in order to bear his sick wife company; this aggravating
circumstance is not counterbalanced in its effects by any mitigating one, for which reason the adequate penalty of prision
correccional should be applied in its maximum degree.

Hence, the court ruled that in the commission of the crime herein the presence of aggravating circumstance of abuse of
confidence must be considered.

US vs VILLORENTE and BISLIG

Facts:
A woman whose husband was not at home, at the earnest solicitation of the three defendants, neighbours of her, housed
and fed them. During the night, while their hostess and her children were sleeping, defendants made a murderous attack upon
them.

Held:
Abuse of confidence is present.

PEOPLE vs EBOL (G.R. No. L-24857, January 23, 1926)

Facts:
About the month of July, 1925, the offended party, Rafaela M. Cruz, lived with her husband and two children, aged 9
and 4 years, respectively, in their house in the barrio of San Roque of the municipality of Zamboanga. On the afternoon of the
6th day of that month the complaining witness was alone in her house with her two children, as her husband, who had gone to
town, did not come home that afternoon. At about half-past six the defendant, Matias Ebol, uncle of the offended party, went to
the house carrying some fishes which he said, as was the fact, were sent to her husband. The offended party took the fishes and
cooked them and then invited the accused to take supper with her, which invitation he accepted. After the supper it seemed as
though it was going to rain and the accused, fearing that the rain might overtake him on the way, asked the offended party to
allow him to pass the night in her house to which she consented. The accused slept in the parlor and the offended party in the
room accompanied by her two children. Between the two compartments there was a door that was kept open most of the time.
At about 4 o'clock in the morning the complaining witness woke up, feeling that a man, who was the defendant, was on top of
her attempting to have carnal knowledge with her. The offended party did all she could to avoid the defendant's evil purpose but
the latter overcame all her resistance and succeeded in having carnal intercourse with her. When the defendant left the house at
dawn, the offended party immediately repaired to her mother's house in another barrio where her aunt Encarnacion Aguilar
lived, in order to tell them what had happened to her. When she arrived at her mother's house and after relating the outrage just
committed upon her, Encarnacion Aguilar accompanied her to the town to look for the husband of the complaining witness, and
when they found him, she told him all that had happened to her.

That same morning when the defendant saw the complaining witness and Encarnacion Aguilar in the town, he
expressed his resentment to the former for having informed her husband of the matter, telling her that he did it during a
nightmare and prayed Encarnacion to intercede between him and the husband of the offended party to avoid a heavy
punishment . On the afternoon of that same day, July 7, the defendant was in the house of Macario Bonifacio and told the latter
that he had "forced" the offended party and mentioned the fact that he had no other alternative than to plead guilty and asked
him to look after his children. These facts appear from the testimony of the complaining witness, Encarnacion Aguilar and
Macario Bonifacio. Encarnacion Aguilar is a sister of the accused and Macario Bonifacio is his nephew.

About 10 o'clock in the same morning the offended party was examined by Doctor Rodriguez who found within her
vagina positive existence of spermatozoa. The offended party stated that she had not had carnal intercourse with her husband
since the 3d of that month.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.

Held:
Yes. The crime was committed with abuse of confidence taking into consideration the relationship between the
offended party and the accused and the fact that the latter asked for shelter in her house that night. At any rate the concurrence
of this circumstance justifies the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree.

Therefore, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.

PEOPLE vs CALISO (G.R. No. L-37271, July 1, 1933)

Facts:

Magdalena Caliso is accused of the crime of murder of a 9-month-old boy, in La Carlota, Negros Occidental, on
February 8 of this year, 1932. The complaint alleges that the accused, being a Maid of Messrs. Esmeralda (Emilio), voluntarily,
illegally and criminally and with the purpose of satisfying a vengeance, I administer a certain amount of concentrated acetic
acid, which is a poisonous substance, to Emilio Esmeralda, Jr., a child of 9 months old, causing burns to his mouth, throat,
intestines and other vital parts of the internal organs that necessarily caused the death of the victim, who succumbed a few hours
late

On the afternoon of February 8, 1932, while the spouses. Messrs. Emilio Esmeralda and Flora Gonzalez were sleeping
taking a nap, suddenly Mrs. Esmeralda woke up because she heard a sharp cry from her son Emilio Esmeralda, 9 months old,
who was sleeping in a bed opposite the place where She was sleeping with her husband. When Mrs. Esmeralda arrived,
followed by her husband, to the bed where she had left her son asleep, when she lifted the bed net, she immediately perceived a
strong smell of acetic acid and found her son, who was still crying loudly , with blank eyes, swollen and whitish lips and
bruised face, and when raised, he perceived the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing. Then she shouted asking who had
put acetic acid in her son's mouth, and since she is a pharmacist by profession, she immediately remembered an antidote that
could neutralize the effects of acetic acid and she herself took out lime water and wetting a hydrophilic cotton, She cleaned the
child's mouth, while sending her husband to phone the doctor. A few moments later Dr. Augusto Locsin arrived, who according
to his statement, immediately noticed the smell of acetic acid in the child's breathing, and wanted to make the first cure,
washing the child's stomach, but the mother did not want that the washing reached the stomach, for fear of hurting the throat of
the child with the 'catheter', and for this reason the washing could only be done to the throat of the child. After some time, they
arrived, from Bacolod, Drs. Orosa and Ochoa, who by phone had also been called by the victim's father. Dr. Orosa is the chief
medical officer of the Provincial Hospital of this province, and Dr. Ochoa is one of the doctors residing in that hospital, a
specialist in diseases of the five senses. Both doctors positively declared that they had perceived the smell of acetic acid in the
child's breathing, and having concluded that the boy had taken acetic acid, applied the cure to remove said substance from the
child's organism, and after doing The first priests took the child to the Provincial Hospital and died there a few minutes after
arriving.

It is a proven fact that days before this event, when Mr. Emilio Esmeralda returned to his house, from the factory of the
Central La Carlota, at about dawn, not a certain lump that moved in the bottom of his bed in the room of him and his lady when
he spent a few days in La Carlota. Fearing that some thief had entered under the bed, he picked up his gun and threatened to
shoot him who was there if he did not leave. Indeed, a man came out of there and, all trembling, he told Mr. Esmeralda that he
was not a thief, but that he was there because he had been called by the accused with whom he was in love. Mr. Esmeralda then
recriminated him for his act and let him go, telling him not to repeat the act again. When mrs. Flora Gonzalez arrived in La
Carlota a few days later, that is, on the day of the car, Mr. Esmeralda, after breakfast and when the accused was absent for
having gone to the market, he told his lady what had happened in one of the past days, that is, having surprised a man in his own
room and under his bed, attending an appointment he had with the accused. Mrs. Esmeralda, given her education and being a
woman at last, felt very offended and outraged by the act of her maid and, very nervous, I await the return of the accused, and
when she arrived, Mrs. Esmeralda I search in the kitchen, he began to insult her from head to toe, recriminating her for her
immoral act and for allowing herself to hide her lover in the room of her masters, and after scolding the accused, she returned to
her room , and the recrimination that he had just done to the defendant seemed little to him, Mrs. Esmeralda again returned to
the kitchen to reprimand her again, and as Mrs. Esmeralda's nerves did not calm down on these two occasions, as He returned to
the kitchen, undertook new insults to the accused, in terms that when Mrs. Esmeralda put her son to sleep in the bed, when she
found something dirty the pillow covers, again she went to the kitchen and returned to admonish the accused by recriminating
her and saying that she only knew how to have lovers and did not know how to fulfill her duties as a maid. Hardly two hours
scarce to occur these insults, the event happened that gave rise to the death of the boy Emilio Esmeralda, Jr.

Issue:
Whether or not that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence is present.

Held:
Yes. In the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the
appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child's amah.