Superior strength, weaken the defense, A14(15) Revised Penal Code
1. Concept
Superior strength, as an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code – refers to the circumstance when the offender took advantage of his/her superior strength or employed means to weaken the defense of the victim in the commission of the crime.
a. Legal basis
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The following are aggravating circumstances:
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
(Revised Penal Code)
2. Superior strength or weaken the defense
For the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the offender took advantage of his/her superior strength or employed means to weaken the defense of the victim in the commission of the crime.
There is abuse of superior strength “whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.” (People v. Canillo, G.R. No. 244051, April 28, 2021, Per Leonen, J.)
To properly appreciate it, it is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition of the parties and the arms or objects employed but the incidents in the total development of the case as well. (People v. De Leon, En Banc, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999)
a. Relative strength
There are no fixed and invariable rules regarding abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim. Superiority does not always mean numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor vis-à-vis the victim. There is abuse of superior strength even if there is only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both and the employment of means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it. The aggressor must have advantage of his natural strength to insure the commission of the crime. (People v. Ventura [2004], supra.)
U.S. v. Rodriguez, En Banc, G.R. No. L-6344, March 21, 1911, Per Moreland, J.:
• The circumstance depends upon the relative strength of the one attacking and the one attacked. It can hardly be said that advantage is taken of superior strength or means are employed to weaken the defense when twenty-three men, in the daytime, openly and without stratagem of any kind, attack a town of the size of Davao. the results of the attack clearly show that the strength of the attacking party was not sufficient to accomplish the purpose in view. They demonstrate, under the circumstance, that no means were employed to weaken the defense, outside of such as are inherent in the situation when one body of men attacks another with deadly weapons.
b. Notorious inequality, excessively out of proportion
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim. The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. (People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, Per Del Castillo, J.)
Abuse of superior strength refers to the purposeful “use [of] force excessively out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.” Thus, in considering this aggravating circumstance, the court looks into “the age, size[,] and strength of the parties.”(People v. Canillo, supra.)
Unlike in treachery, where the victim is not given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, taking advantage of superior strength does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it. (People v. Ventura, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per Curiam)
People v. Canillo, G.R. No. 244051, April 28, 2021, Per Leonen, J.:
• Here, the prosecution was able to show the notorious inequality of forces, as it proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants used their combined strength and weapons to comer Bohol and then hack him to death. Even the way accused-appellants positioned themselves against Bohol-Anthony in front of the victim and Eduardo behind-showed how they used their advantage to ensure Bohol’s gruesome death. The Court of Appeals found:
When the victim was cornered, a fatal hacking blow on the head was immediately released by Anthony. Knowing that Alberto was already defenseless and severely hurt, Eduardo still hacked him on the right side of his neck and even continued to stab him even when the victim collapsed on the ground.
• Hence, the conviction for murder stands.
People v. Ventura, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, Per Curiam:
• Appellants “agree with the trial court that accused-appellant Arante Flores is taller, and probably stronger than the victim Aileen Bocateja because of their difference in sex as well as the fact that the accused appellant Flores was armed at that time…” Nevertheless, they argue that Aileen’s death was not attended by abuse of superior strength since: (1) though ultimately unsuccessful, she was able to put up a defense against appellant Flores; and (2) the prosecution failed to show that appellant Flores deliberately took advantage of the disparity in their size and sex in order to facilitate the commission of the crime.
• [T]he fact that Aileen attempted to fend off the attack on her and her husband by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at appellant Flores does not automatically negate the possibility that the latter was able to take advantage of his superior strength.
• On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
• In this case, accused-appellant was armed with a knife and used the same in repeatedly stabbing Leah, a young wisp of a girl, no less than eighteen times after overtaking her in the sala of Dan’s house. Irrefragably, then, accused-appellant abused his superior strength in stabbing Leah.
c. Prior deliberation or meditation
For this qualifying circumstance to be considered, it is not sufficient that there be superiority in number or strength; it is necessary that the accused must have cooperated and intended to use or secure advantage from such superior strength. As we also emphasized in People vs. Cabiling, abuse of superior strength may be considered not only when there is an inequality of force between the victim and the aggressor but there must be a situation of superiority of strength notoriously selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. (People v. Bigcas, G.R. No. 94534, July 2, 1992, Per Regalado, J.)
People v. Campit, G.R. No. 225794, December 6, 2017, Per Martires, J.:
• [T]he events leading to the stabbing negate the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as, to some extent, from the accounts of Cresencio, it could be gathered that the quarrel started when Cresencio felt offended after Leon repeatedly rejected his request for a loan. Clearly, the incident was unplanned and unpremeditated. When the quarrel between the victim and his assailants arose unexpectedly, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior- strength could not be appreciated as the same requires some degree of prior deliberation or meditation.
People v. Bigcas, G.R. No. 94534, July 2, 1992, Per Regalado, J.:
• We [the Supreme Court] find that the prosecution has fallen short of proof that appellants bad specifically contrived or deliberately intended and prepared to take advantage of superior strength in a projected assault against the victim. This requisite cannot be drawn from mere assumptions or conjectures, for qualifying circumstances must be proved as conclusively as the crime itself.
d. Superiority in numbers
Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance. (People v. Beduya [2010], supra.)
[I]t must be stressed that superiority in number does not necessarily amount to abuse of superior strength. For the qualifying circumstance to be appreciated, it must be shown that the aggressors combined forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority in strength. Differently stated, it must be proven that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. Furthermore, the evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. After all, to take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. Thus, it had been held that when the victim was attacked by the assailants alternatively, the claim that the accused abused their superior strength could not be appreciated. (People v. Campit, G.R. No. 225794, December 6, 2017, Per Martires, J.)
People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, Per Del Castillo, J.:
• The events leading to the stabbing further disprove any finding of deliberate intent on the part of the assailants to abuse their superior strength over that of the victim. The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, on the whole, show that the incident between the victim and his assailants was unplanned and unpremeditated. The assailants were in pursuit of Bughao when the victim advised them to go home since it was already late at night. There was indeed no conscious attempt on the part of the assailants to use or take advantage of any superior strength that they then enjoyed. Particularly, it has not been clearly established that the appellants, with an advantage in number, purposely resorted to punching the victim and delivering a fatal stab wound. Neither has it been shown that the victim was simply overwhelmed by the fist blows delivered by Ric and Elizer’s act of stabbing him. The evidence on this matter is too insufficient for a definitive conclusion. What has been shown with certainty and clarity is the appellants’ intent to kill, as shown by the stab wound in the left side of the victim’s body which resulted in his death two days later. As the knife wielder, Elizer is guilty of assaulting and killing the victim.
e. When armed
The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, is not per se indicative of abuse of superior strength. (See: Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 149988, August 14, 2009, Per Brion, J.)
[However,] in a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. (People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 215320, February 28, 2018, Per Martires, J.)
People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, Per Del Castillo, J.:
• The prosecution in this case failed to adduce evidence of a relative disparity in age, size and strength, or force, except for the showing that two assailants, one of them (Elizer) armed with a knife, assaulted the victim. The presence of two assailants, one of them armed with a knife, does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance. Neither did the prosecution present proof to show that the victim suffered from an inferior physical condition from which the circumstance can be inferred. In fact, there is evidence that the victim was able to get hold of a piece of wood and deliver retaliatory blows against the knife-wielder, Elizer.
People v. Enojo, G.R. No. 240231, November 27, 2019, Per Zalameda, R.V., J.:
• [Abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance was considered in this case considering that the offender was a male with a deadly weapon attacking an unaarmed woman who was unable to defend herself.]
• [A]n attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. The pieces of evidence show that at the time of her attack, Carmen was unarmed and without any means to fend off accused-appellant’s attacks with his bolo.
f. Alternative attacks
[W]hen the victim was attacked by the assailants alternatively, the claim that the accused abused their superior strength could not be appreciated. (People v. Campit [2017], supra.)
People v. Campit, G.R. No. 225794, December 6, 2017, Per Martires, J.:
• In this case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution established that only Cresencio approached Leon while the latter was in his bodega. Thereafter, Cresencio, following an argument, stabbed Leon multiple times. It was only when Leon escaped from Cresencio that Emilio appeared and stabbed the victim on his chest. Considering that the perpetrators attacked the victim alternatively and did not combine their superior strength to overwhelm the victim, they could not be said to have taken advantage of their superior strength.
g. Inferior physical condition
There is also abuse of such superiority when the victim is old and weak, while the accused is stronger on account of his relatively younger age. (People v. Corpuz [2018], supra.)
[T]he circumstance [of abuse of superior strength cannot] be inferred solely from the victim’s possibly weaker physical constitution. (Valenzuela v. People [2009], supra.)
People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, Per Del Castillo, J.:
• [T]he prosecution [did not] present proof to show that the victim suffered from an inferior physical condition from which the circumstance can be inferred. In fact, there is evidence that the victim was able to get hold of a piece of wood and deliver retaliatory blows against the knife-wielder, Elizer.
3. Distinguished
The following should be distinguished.
a. Use of superior strength, A14 RPC vs Rape, A248 RPC
| Factors | Superior strength, A14(15) RPC | Murder, A248 RPC |
| Effect | Generic aggravating circumstance (i.e. it applies to all crimes) – unless it is an attendant circumstance as in murder | Attendant circumstance to the crime of raper; hence, abuse of strength is absorbed in and qualifies the crime of murder |
| Overt Acts | Offender commits a crime and advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. | Offender commits the crime of rape and with abuse of superior strength. |
The use of a deadly weapon which is considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape is likewise to be appreciated to constitute the offenses charged in these cases into what are jurisprudentially referred as qualified rapes. (People v. Codilla, G.R. Nos. 100720-23, June 30, 1993, Per Regalado, J.)
People v. De Leon, En Banc, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999, Per Puno, J.:
• That accused-appellant deliberately took advantage of his superior strength by using excessive force on his victim has not been proven. The use of the knife already qualified the rape; and this absorbed the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Moreover, like the crime of parricide by a husband on his wife, abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape. It is generally accepted that under normal circumstances a man who commits rape on a woman is physically stronger than the latter.
b. Superior strength, A14(15) RPC vs Murder, A248 RPC
| Factors | Superior strength, A14(15) RPC | Murder, A248 RPC |
| Effect | Generic aggravating circumstance (i.e. it applies to all crimes) – unless it is an attendant circumstance as in murder | Attendant circumstance to the crime of murder; hence, abuse of strength is absorbed in and qualifies the crime of murder |
| Overt Acts | Offender commits a crime and advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. | Offender commits the crime of murder and the killing was done with cruelty, by taking advantage of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. |
Under Article 248 of the RPC, the following is an attendant circumstance to murder if the killing was done: by taking advantage of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
Murder is the unlawful killing by the accused of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the attendant circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is present. Abuse of superior strength is one of the qualifying circumstances mentioned therein that qualifies the killing of the victim to murder. (People v. Bediya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, Per Del Castillo, J.)
4. Other things to note
a. Treachery and abuse of superior strength
Abuse of superior strength is not treachery, although it might be absorbed by the latter… Superiority of strength may be derived from the number of assailants and the simultaneousness of the attack… If treachery is present, it may absorb superior strength… (People v. Pinca [1962], supra.)
References
• Title I – Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability, Book I, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code
