I. Statutory Basis

In the Philippines, murder is primarily governed by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and affected in its penalty by Republic Act No. 9346 (which abolished the imposition of the death penalty).

Article 248 provides, in substance, that:

Any person who, not falling within the provisions of parricide (Art. 246) or homicide (Art. 249), shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder if the killing is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in the Article.

The penalty under the RPC remains reclusion perpetua to death, but death is no longer imposable by virtue of RA 9346; in practice, courts impose reclusion perpetua, subject to rules on parole and good conduct time allowances, as further revised by later laws.

II. Basic Concept: Murder vs. Homicide vs. Parricide vs. Infanticide

1. Simple Homicide (Art. 249)

Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person without any qualifying circumstance of murder and without the special relationship of parricide and without the special conditions of infanticide.
Elements:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed that person;
3. The killing is not parricide or infanticide;
4. The killing is not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder.

If none of the listed qualifiers for murder is present (or sufficiently proved), the offense is usually homicide.

2. Parricide (Art. 246)

Parricide is the killing by the offender of:
- his/her legitimate or illegitimate father, mother, or child, or
- any of his/her other ascendants or descendants, or
- his/her spouse.
If this special relationship exists and is properly alleged and proved, the crime is parricide, even if some murder qualifiers are present — the relationship is a special qualifying circumstance.

3. Infanticide (Art. 255)

Killing of a child less than three days old.
Also a special crime, distinct from murder and homicide.

4. Murder (Art. 248)

Murder is a form of unlawful killing characterized by the presence of at least one qualifying circumstance.
It is more severely punished than simple homicide because of the manner of attack, motive, or circumstances, showing increased perversity or social danger.
It is not parricide or infanticide—that is an element in itself.

III. Elements of Murder

The elements of murder under Philippine law are:

That a person was killed;
That the accused killed that person;
That the killing is not parricide or infanticide;
That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 248.

Every element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The qualifying circumstance must be:

Specifically alleged in the Information, and
Proved with the same degree of certainty as the act of killing.

If the qualifying circumstance is not alleged but proven, it may only be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance, not as a qualifier. If it is alleged but not proved, the crime usually falls back to homicide.

IV. Qualifying Circumstances of Murder

Under Article 248, as amended, the killing becomes murder if attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances:

With treachery (alevosia), 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;
In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in paragraph 7 of Article 14 (e.g., earthquake, eruption, epidemic or other public calamity);
With evident premeditation;
With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Each one has a rich body of jurisprudence. Below is a doctrinal overview.

V. Doctrinal Discussion of the Main Qualifying Circumstances

1. Treachery (Alevosia)

Concept: There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might make.

Requisites:

The means of execution gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and
Such means were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.

Typical examples:

Sudden attack from behind on an unsuspecting victim;
Attack upon a sleeping, unarmed, or otherwise helpless victim;
Shooting a victim without warning, when circumstances show conscious adoption of the method.

Important nuances:

A sudden attack is not automatically treachery; it must be shown that the mode was consciously adopted and not merely the result of a spontaneous fight.
If there was a heated altercation and the attack followed immediately, courts often rule that the attack is not treacherous but merely sudden.
Treachery qualifies the killing to murder, and if also alleged as a generic circumstance, it cannot be counted twice.

2. Abuse of Superior Strength / Aid of Armed Men / Means to Weaken Defense / Means to Insure Impunity

These are grouped under paragraph 1 of Article 248.

a. Taking Advantage of Superior Strength

The offender purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the victim’s defense, leveraging physical strength, weapons, or numerical superiority.
Examples:
- Several armed assailants attacking a lone unarmed victim;
- A strong adult attacking a child or frail elderly person with overwhelming force.

Courts typically look at the relative strength of parties and whether the assailants deliberately used such superiority.

b. With the Aid of Armed Men

The offender relies on armed men who cooperate with or assist him in the commission of the crime.
The presence of armed men must embolden the principal, or facilitate the killing.

c. Employing Means to Weaken the Defense

The offender disables or weakens the victim before or during the attack (e.g., intoxicating, drugging, or restraining the victim).
This is distinct from treachery but often overlaps; the same set of facts may be appreciated under one or the other, not both.

d. Employing Means or Persons to Insure or Afford Impunity

The offender employs methods intended to avoid detection, prosecution, or capture, such as disguise or pre-arranged circumstances.
Example: Luring the victim to a secluded place with co-conspirators stationed to prevent escape or rescue.

3. In Consideration of Price, Reward, or Promise

There is murder when the killing is motivated by payment or the expectation of payment, pecuniary or otherwise.
Two aspects:
1. There is an offer or promise made by the instigator; and
2. The killer accepts such price/reward/promise and acts because of it.

The instigator (who offered the price) and the killer (who accepted it) are both liable; the circumstance qualifies the killing for both as long as it is alleged and proved.

4. By Means of Fire, Explosion, Poison, Inundation, Etc.

This covers killings committed:

By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion;
Shipwreck or the stranding of a vessel;
Derailment or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive;
Or any other means involving great waste and ruin.

Key points:

The qualifying factor here is the means employed—particularly dangerous, destructive, or causing widespread damage.
If the primary intent is to kill and fire, explosion, etc. is used as the means, murder is committed.
If the primary intent is to cause destruction, and death results only incidentally, the classification may differ (e.g., destructive arson with homicide).

5. On Occasion of a Calamity (Art. 14, par. 7 Reference)

This qualifier exists when the killing is committed:

On the occasion of or during a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.

The law punishes more severely those who take advantage of public distress, when people are vulnerable and institutions are overwhelmed.

6. With Evident Premeditation

Concept: The offender thought over the crime beforehand, persisted in the determination, and then carried out the plan after a sufficient lapse of time.

Requisites:

The time when the offender decided to commit the crime is proven;
An overt act showing that the offender clung to this determination;
A sufficient interval between the decision and execution to allow reflection.

If proved, evident premeditation shows heightened perversity and is a qualifying circumstance if alleged.

7. With Cruelty or by Outraging or Scoffing at the Victim or Corpse

a. Cruelty

The offender deliberately augments the victim’s suffering beyond that necessary to kill.
Requisites:
1. The victim was alive when the cruelty was inflicted; and
2. The purpose was to increase suffering.

Examples: Mutilating body parts while the victim still lives, inflicting multiple unnecessary wounds in a deliberate manner to prolong agony.

b. Outraging or Scoffing at the Person or Corpse

Acts that show insult, disrespect, or mockery of the victim, alive or dead.
Example: Publicly desecrating the corpse, humiliating or degrading the victim during or immediately after killing.

VI. Qualifying vs. Generic Aggravating Circumstances

Not all aggravating circumstances qualify the killing to murder. Some are merely generic aggravating (under Article 14) which:

Increase the penalty within the range but
Do not change the nature of the crime (homicide remains homicide).

Examples of generic aggravating (when not listed in Art. 248):

Nighttime (nocturnity), if especially sought to facilitate the crime;
Uninhabited place;
Use of motor vehicle (note: in Art. 248, “use of motor vehicle” is specifically tied to certain destructive means in some versions/jurisprudence; otherwise, it is generic under Art. 14);
Ignominy, etc.

Crucial procedural rule:

A circumstance listed in Art. 248 becomes qualifying only when alleged in the Information.
If not alleged but proved, it may be treated as generic aggravating.
Courts cannot change the nature of the crime to murder based on an unalleged qualifying circumstance without violating the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

VII. Stages of Execution: Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Murder

1. Consummated Murder

All elements are present:

Victim died; and
At least one qualifying circumstance is present, alleged, and proved.

2. Frustrated Murder

The offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but the victim does not die due to causes independent of the offender’s will (e.g., timely medical intervention).
Qualifying circumstances (e.g., treachery) may still be appreciated, and the crime is classified as frustrated murder, not homicide.

3. Attempted Murder

The offender commences the commission of murder directly by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own desistance.
Example: Firing a gun at a sleeping victim (treachery) but missing, or being stopped early.

VIII. Conspiracy, Multiple Offenders, and Liability

1. Conspiracy

When two or more persons agree and decide to commit murder and participate in overt acts, each is liable as a principal by direct participation, and the qualifying circumstance (e.g., treachery) is attributed to all conspirators, provided they were aware of and concurred in the manner of attack.

2. Co-Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories

Principals – those who directly participate, induce, or cooperate in the execution of murder.
Accomplices – those who cooperate in the execution by prior or simultaneous acts, without being principal.
Accessories – those who, with knowledge of the crime and without having participated, help the offender profit from its effects or evade justice.

Qualifying circumstances primarily attach to principals in the killing. Accomplices and accessories may still be affected by aggravating circumstances, depending on their knowledge and participation.

IX. Special Doctrines Affecting Murder

1. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)

If the offender intends to kill one person but kills another due to mistake in identity, liability for murder still attaches if the intended killing, had it succeeded, would have been murder and the qualifying circumstances are actually present in the killing of the actual victim.

2. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow)

If the intended victim is not hit but another person is killed due to stray shot or misdirected blow, the offender can still be liable for murder of the unintended victim if the qualifying circumstances (treachery, etc.) characterize the mode of attack.

3. Praeter Intentionem (Injury Greater Than Intended)

When the resulting death is greater than what was intended, this can be a mitigating circumstance but does not erase the qualifying circumstances if they are present.

X. Murder vs. Special Complex Crimes (e.g., Robbery with Homicide)

Certain killings are absorbed in special complex crimes under the RPC, such as:

Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294)
Rape with Homicide
Kidnapping with Homicide (Art. 267)

Key points:

If the primary intent is to commit robbery, rape, or kidnapping and homicide results (even if qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, etc.), the crime is typically the special complex crime, not separate murder.
The term “homicide” in these provisions is used in a generic sense, and includes killings that would otherwise be murder if considered separately.
The murder qualifiers (treachery, etc.) are not ignored; they can affect the penalty within the range but do not change the legal classification from, say, “robbery with homicide” to “robbery with murder.”

XI. Defenses, Justifying and Exempting Circumstances

Even when the act would otherwise constitute murder, it may be justified, exempted, or mitigated under Articles 11, 12, and 13 of the RPC.

1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

Self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of strangers, performance of duty, obedience to lawful order, etc.
If all requisites are present (unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender), no crime exists — even if the manner of killing otherwise appears treacherous.

2. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12)

Insanity, minority under 15 years (subject to special laws), accident, irresistible force, etc.
These remove criminal liability, while still leaving civil liability in some cases.

3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13) and Special Laws

Minority (in conjunction with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, RA 9344 and amendments),
Voluntary surrender,
Passion or obfuscation,
Praeter intentionem, etc.

These do not change the fact that the crime is murder if qualifying circumstances are present, but they can lower the penalty within the applicable range.

XII. Penalties and Civil Liabilities

1. Penalty

Statutory penalty for murder: Reclusion perpetua to death.
Due to RA 9346, death penalty cannot be imposed; the maximum actual penalty is reclusion perpetua.
The presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances affects the period and collateral consequences within the range, but not beyond reclusion perpetua in practice.

2. Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Indeterminate Sentence Law generally applies, but reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty; thus, courts impose it without minimum and maximum periods.
If lowered due to privileged mitigating circumstances (e.g., minority), the penalty may go down to a divisible penalty, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.

3. Civil Liabilities

A person convicted of murder is also civilly liable for:

Civil indemnity for death (fixed amounts per current jurisprudence at the time of decision),
Moral damages,
Exemplary damages (especially where qualifying circumstances like treachery exist),
Actual damages (e.g., medical, funeral expenses), or temperate damages where actual proof is lacking.

The amounts evolve over time via Supreme Court decisions adjusting standard awards.

XIII. Procedural Aspects: Information, Allegations, and Proof

1. Allegation in the Information

The Information must specifically allege:
- That the accused killed the victim; and
- The qualifying circumstances (e.g., “with treachery,” “with evident premeditation,” “in consideration of price,” etc.).

A mere general description is not sufficient when it comes to qualifying circumstances; they must be clearly stated to satisfy the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.

2. Variance Between Allegation and Proof

If murder is charged (with a specific qualifying circumstance), but such qualifier is not proved, a conviction for homicide is proper.
If homicide is charged but a qualifying circumstance is proved, conviction for murder generally cannot be had, because murder is not necessarily included in homicide; the accused was not informed he had to defend against the qualifying circumstance.

3. Judicial Appreciation

Courts must carefully evaluate evidence on qualifiers:
- Eyewitness testimony on how the attack occurred;
- Forensic evidence;
- Circumstantial evidence supporting premeditation, cruelty, or use of destructive means.
In case of doubt, courts generally resolve in favor of the accused by downgrading from murder to homicide.

XIV. Interaction with Special Penal Laws

While murder is defined in the RPC, many special laws intersect conceptually with murder when death results, such as:

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act – killings connected with drug offenses;
Anti-Hazing Law, Anti-Torture Law, VAWC Law, Child Abuse Law – where death of a victim may still be prosecuted as murder (or as a specific offense under these laws), depending on legislative text and prosecutorial choice;
Terrorism-related laws – killings in furtherance of terrorism, which may be charged under specific anti-terrorism statutes rather than ordinary murder.

Prosecutors and courts must determine whether the special law or the RPC applies as the primary basis, and whether one absorbs the other.

XV. Summary

In Philippine criminal law, murder is not simply “killing with malice.” It is a qualified form of unlawful killing, characterized by:

A victim who dies;
An accused who causes the death;
Exclusion from special relations/conditions of parricide and infanticide; and
The presence of at least one qualifying circumstance under Article 248, properly alleged and proved.

The qualifying circumstances focus on:

Mode of attack (treachery, superior strength, cruelty, etc.),
Motive (price, reward, promise),
Means employed (fire, poison, explosion, other destructive means),
Context (on the occasion of calamity),
Degree of premeditation and moral perversity (evident premeditation, cruelty, outraging/scoffing).

They reflect the law’s judgment that certain ways of killing reveal greater perversity and social danger, meriting harsher penalties and greater civil liability. Understanding murder in Philippine law therefore requires not just knowing the statutory text, but also how courts interpret and apply the qualifying circumstances in concrete cases, always in light of constitutional guarantees of due process and the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.