Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (Art. 15, Revised Penal Code)


When is intoxication mitigating?

Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. 

Elements:

A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof that: 

1. He has taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason; and

2. He is not a habitual drinker and did not take the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.


When is intoxication aggravating?

Intoxication is aggravating if it is habitual or intentional. 


Cases:

● To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient evidence. It should be such an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower or the capacity to know the injustice of his act. The accused must then show that: 

(1) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of self-control; and 

(2) such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. (People vs. Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999)

● Intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating, depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime; on the other hand, when it is habitual or intentional, it is considered an aggravating circumstance. A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. At the same time, that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.

Appellant belatedly pleads in his Reply Brief that intoxication should mitigate his penalty. He relies merely on the prosecution's narration of facts which supposedly "indicate that the accused-appellant himself was intoxicated at the moment of the attack," and "there was no evidence presented that [his] state of intoxication was 'not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony.'"

Appellant cannot simply rely on those statements of the prosecution. He himself must present convincing proof of the nature and the effect of his intoxication. What appears undisputed in the records, however, is that he had a glass of beer prior to the murder incident. Under normal circumstances, a glass of beer is not so intoxicating as to diminish a man's rational capacity. It was not proven at all that such amount of alcohol blurred his reason. This element is essential for intoxication to be considered mitigating. (People vs. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256. November 17, 1999)

● To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens individual resistance to evil thought and undermines will-power making its victim a potential evildoer. The records of these cases do not show that the appellant was given to excessive use of intoxicating drinks although he used to get drunk every now and then. The intoxication of the appellant not being habitual, and considering that the said appellant was in a state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Camano, G.R. No. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982)

● To be available as a means to lighten the penalty, the fact of intoxication must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. In the case at bar, defendants-appellants made no offer to show that during the commission of the crime they were drunk to the point of losing the use of their reason and self-control. Neither has it been shown that just before they committed the crime defendants-appellants had in fact been drinking. The extrajudicial confession of Pablo Viñalon found on page 30 of the record, which counsel for the defense bring to the attention to this court to prove that Viñalon was drunk during the commission of the crime, may not be taken into account, not having been offered as an exhibit. Besides, all that said confession states that Viñalon had been drinking tuba together with a certain Sulpicio Cuadera before he repaired to the house of Macario Conje, without stating the amount or quantity of liquor they had consumed, upon which the court could base its finding as to the degree of their intoxication. Hence the lower court acted rightly in not appreciating drunkenness as a mitigating circumstances in their favor. (People vs. Enot, G.R. No. L-17530, October 30, 1962)

● This alternative circumstance cannot be considered mitigating as the appellant, aside from his self-serving testimony that he could not remember anything, has failed to prove that the liquor he drank impaired his mental faculties and that his drinking was not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. In fact, it should be considered as an aggravating circumstance since it was admitted by the appellant himself that he had been drinking liquor for a long time and he took part in at least 10 drinking sessions held in Ricardo Rivera's house. He further stated that he tried to stop drinking liquor but he went back to his old habit. He was even drinking after this July 29, 1986 incident. Not only was the appellant drunk, but he testified that it was his habit to take prohibited drugs while drinking liquor. (People vs. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991)

● Appellant's claim that he was drunk at the time he executed the criminal act, is untenable. He failed to establish by convincing evidence that his reason was blurred to the extent that he was deprived of that degree of control of himself. The fact that he was able to drive his tricycle to the place where he brought his victim, made love to her following which he killed and dumped her into a well and then drove his vehicle back to Laoag City, shows that he had complete control of his mental faculties. (People vs. Damo, G.R. No. L-60370, April 7, 1984)