Abuse of superior strength
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. (G.R. No. 226475. March 13, 2017)
To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’ deliberate intent to do so. (G.R. No. 147649. December 17, 2002)
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. Taking advantage of superior strength does not always mean numerical superiority or that the victim was completely defenseless. It depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor/s vis a vis the victim. It is determined by the excess of the aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim which is taken advantage of to weaken the defense and ensure the commission of the crime. (Abuse of superior strength. Jose C. Sison. May 28, 2009 - 12:00am. www.philstar.com/opinion/2009/05/28/471761/abuse-superior-strength)
The evidence shows that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. In the attack two assailants held his arms on either side while the other two on the victim’s front and back each armed with a knife and piece of wood that they later used on the victim. Against this onslaught, there was indeed gross inequality of forces between the victim and the four assailants and that the victim was overwhelmed by forces he could not match. The RTC and the CA therefore correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength which qualified the killing to the crime of murder. (People vs. Amodia, G.R. 173791, April 7, 2009)
To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’ deliberate intent to do so. (G.R. No. 147649. December 17, 2002)
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. Taking advantage of superior strength does not always mean numerical superiority or that the victim was completely defenseless. It depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor/s vis a vis the victim. It is determined by the excess of the aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim which is taken advantage of to weaken the defense and ensure the commission of the crime. (Abuse of superior strength. Jose C. Sison. May 28, 2009 - 12:00am. www.philstar.com/opinion/2009/05/28/471761/abuse-superior-strength)
The evidence shows that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. In the attack two assailants held his arms on either side while the other two on the victim’s front and back each armed with a knife and piece of wood that they later used on the victim. Against this onslaught, there was indeed gross inequality of forces between the victim and the four assailants and that the victim was overwhelmed by forces he could not match. The RTC and the CA therefore correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength which qualified the killing to the crime of murder. (People vs. Amodia, G.R. 173791, April 7, 2009)
