What are the requisites in order for cruelty to be aggravating?

For cruelty to be aggravating, 

1. There must be evidence to show that the cruel acts were done while the victim was alive; and
2. The accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse


●Paragraph 21, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is cruelty in the commission of a felony when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. There is no cruelty when the other wrong is done after the victim is already dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. In this case, the evidence of the prosecution as gleaned from the testimony of Gaudioso Isugan quoting accused Juan Veranio is that when the accused and appellants threw the victim into the precipice, the latter was already dead. (People vs. Sibonga, G.R. No. 95901. June 16, 2003)

●The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. The nature of cruelty lies in the fact that the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal act which he intended to commit. (People vs. Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362. February 27, 2002)


Will cruelty be appreciated immediately if there are numerous stab wounds on the victim?

●The sheer number of wounds is not a test for determining whether cruelty attended the commission of a crime. (People vs. Sitchon) The number of wounds alone does not indicate cruelty as it is essential to show that these were inflicted unnecessarily while the victim was alive to prolong his physical suffering. 

● As to the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, although the accused stabbed the victim several times, the same could not be considered as cruelty because there was no showing that it was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim. For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the suffering of the victim the offender denotes sadism and consequently a marked degree of malice and perversity. The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one (1) wound and that of another to show that he had wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this aggravating circumstance into consideration. (People vs. Cortes, G.R. No. 137050. July 11, 2001)

● There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act which he intends to commit. The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one wound and that of another to show that he had wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this aggravating circumstance into consideration. (People vs. Dayug)


Examples of cruelty:

1. The victim in this case was already weak and almost dying when appellant Bonito inserted the cassava trunk inside her private organ. What appellant Bonito did to her was totally unnecessary for the criminal act intended and it undoubtedly inhumanly increased her suffering. (People vs. Bonito) 

2. Gagging of the mouth of a 3-year old child with stockings, dumping him with head downward into a box, and covering the box with sacks and other boxes, causing slow suffocation, and as a result the child died, constitutes cruelty. (People v. Lara, 113 SCRA 316)  

3. In the crime of rape, where the offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her. (People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316)


When cruelty is not shown because the victim may already be dead, what instead may be present?

As established by the testimony of witnesses, appellant first severed the victims head before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was perpetrated when the victim was already dead.

What now remains to be considered is whether the act of cutting-off the victims penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim.

Appellant strongly takes exception to this finding. He states that this circumstance was not properly alleged with specificity in the information, thereby violating the right of the accused to be informed. Appellant contends that beheading and/or cutting-off the penis were merely mentioned in the information as the cause of death but not as a qualifying circumstance.

For the appellee, the OSG avers that the allegations in the complaint, that the accused beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim serves the function of stating specifically the act which constitutes outraging or scoffing at the victims corpse.

On this point, we agree with the OSGs assertion and interpretation. While the information did not allege this qualifying circumstance in the exact words of the law, outraging the dead and scoffing at the victims corpse are nevertheless deducible from the recital in the information. The sequence of events as attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut the penis of the victim, Ernesto Ocampo alleged in the information points to the outrage committed on the dead. (People vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 134759. September 19, 2002)


 Examples of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim:

1. No greater outrage, insult or abuse can a person commit upon a corpse than to server the head therefrom. The head represents the dignity of the person and any violence directed towards it cannot be interpreted in any other manner than an outrage to his corpse. (People vs. Binondo, G.R. No. 97227, October 20, 1992)

2. Beheading and cuting off the penis of the victim. (People vs. Guerrero)