That the crime be committed xxx by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (Art. 14, par. 20, RPC)


When is the use of a motor vehicle aggravating?

The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape. (People vs. Lozada, G.R. No. 141121. July 17, 2003) 

Examples:

●The prosecution failed to establish that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado herself merely testified that Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did not say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft was aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in committing the crime. Under Article 14(20) of the RPC, the use of a motor vehicle as a means of committing a crime is a generic aggravating circumstance. Thus, the maximum period of the penalty for the crime of theft shall be imposed upon Concepcion due to the presence of a generic aggravating circumstance and the absence of any mitigating circumstance.

● The records show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the jeepney driven by Saladio after which appellant’s back rider mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate their escape after they accomplished their mission. (People vs. Salahuddin)

● Use of motor vehicle was also properly considered as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant deliberately used the van he was driving to pursue the victims. Upon catching up with them, appellant ran over them and mowed them down with the van, resulting to the death of SN1 Andal and SN1 Duclayna and injuries to the others. Thereafter, he continued to speed away from the scene of the incident. Without doubt, appellant used the van both as a means to commit a crime and to flee the scene of the crime after he committed the felonious act. (People vs. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012)


When is the use of a motor vehicle not aggravating?

The use of a motor vehicle is not aggravating when the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult. (People vs. Salahuddin, G.R. No. 206291, G.R. No. 206291)


Meaning of “or other similar means”

The expression should be understood as referring to 

(a) MOTORIZED vehicles or
(b) other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.


The use of motor vehicle in killing a person is murder

● The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up with him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph.

The case of People v. Muoz cited by Rufino finds no application to the present case. In the said case, the police patrol jeep was merely used by the accused therein in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it was dumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latter's death. In the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who kills another by means of a motor vehicle is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder. (People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993. June 17, 2003)