You are on page 1of 2

Crim 8-22

Now, as a review, we have discussed that the alternative circumstance of relationship can either
be mitigating or aggravating. To be specific, in crimes against property, as a general rule,
relationship is mitigating. That would be in crimes aganst property which are as examples would
be the crimes of arson, theft, malicious mischief. The circumstance of relationship in crimes
against property serve as a mitigating circumstance.

We have discussed that in crimes against persons, whether the offender is a relative of the
offended party in a lower or in the same level, the relationship is always an aggravating
cirsumstance. Now what about in crimes against chastity like acts of lasciviousness? It would
always be an aggravating circumstance.

Now, we go to the second alternative circumstance which is Intoxication. Intoxication is

mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the state of intoxication. It is not
habitual or subsequent to the crime or felony because of it is shown that it is habitual or
intentional, intoxication becomes an aggravating circumstance.

When do we say that intoxication is habitual? We say that intoxication is habitual when it is a
habit. It has already become part of your system. When we say intoxication, what is the
presumption? The presumption is that intoxication is not habitual. So if it is not habitual, what is
the effect? It is considered as a mitigating circumstance. we have the case of People vs Fontillas
(December 15, 2010). The accused here raped his own daughter because prior to the act of
raping, he drank 8 bottles of gin. The Supreme Court said the accused-apellant did not present
any evidence that his intoxiation was not habitual and subsequent to the crime of rape. The
person pleading intoxication must likewise prove that he took such quantity of alcohol or
beverage prior to the commission of the crime as to blur his reason. Accused appellant utterly
failed to prove clear and convincing proof that the extent of his intoxication at the night of
December 8, 2001 that the amount of liquor he had taken was of such quantity as to impart his
mental capacities. The act of drinking bottles of gin did not satisfy that he should be entitled to
such mitigating circumstance of not being habitual. The Supreme Court refused to consider that
as mitigating, rather it imposed intoxication as an aggravating circumstance.

Another cases which I want you to read is People vs Victoriano dela Cruz (Feb. 2010) and People
vs Patelan et al. (June 2011).

Now, in the case of People vs Capukian (326 S 355), the accused there killed the victims who are
his drinking buddies due to his intoxication. The Supreme Court said that intoxication can either
be medicinal or non-medicinal. The problem with intoxication is that one's life is considered to
be in morgue and the other life is considered to be in penitentiary. Another case is People vs
Baroy (2002). In this case, the Supreme Court said that intoxication is this case is mitigating
when it is accidental and not habitual and not subsequent to the act to commit the crime. To be
mitigating, the state of the accused of his intoxication must be proved. So provided that
intoxication is not habitual or is not subsequent to the plan of commission of the crime, it is
considered as mitigating. Otherwise, it is aggravating.

We have the other tye which is the degree of instruction or education of the offender. Now, in
the degree of instruction or education of the offender, in so far as the degree of instruction or
education is concerned, we have to consider what crime was committed by the offender to the
offended party. For example, in the crime of falsification, the higher the degree of the
isntruction, the clearer to apply the aggravating circumstance of degree of instruction or
education in the commission of falsification. A lawyer has a higher degree of education
compared to that of a 4th Year high school student. What if the one who committed falsification
is a 4th year high school student? This time we can say that the degree of instruction may be
considered as a mitigating circumstance in the crime of falsification. Illiterate e.

But what about in the crime of rape when the one who committed rape is an illiterate person?
Does the degree of instruction matter when he committed the crime of rape? Will he be entitled
of a mitigating circumstance? The answer is no because you don't have to go to school for you to
know that raping a woman against her will is a crime.

In the crime of treason, there are cases wherein the Supreme Court said that you don't have to
go to school to know that loving your country is one of the obligations of a Filipino. If an illiterate
person commits the crime of treason, then the degree of instruction will not matter. It will not
be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Another, if a doctor commits the crime of murder by using poison, what would be an effect? He
is a chemist who knows how to mix substances. In that example, her degree of instruction
should be considered as an aggravating circumstance. He used his knowledge to perpetrate the