Based on the book of Reyes on PRC
321-322, 325-326)
CRIMINAL LAW I
Art. 15: Alternative Circumstances
Art. 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 is the souse, 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 circumstance when the offender has committed a
felony 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.
The alternative circumstances are:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree or instruction and education of the offender.
Relationship as alternative circumstance
Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the –
(a) Spouse
(b) Ascendant
(c) Descendant
(d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
(e) Relative y affinity in the same degree of the offender
Other relatives included
✓ Relationship of stepfather or stepmother and
stepson or stepdaughter
✓ Relationship of adopted parent and adopted child
may be included, similar to that of ascendant and
descendant.
✓ EXCEPTION: relationship between uncle and niece
People v. Portento
It is the duty of the stepmother to bestow upon her
stepdaughter a mother’s affection, care and protection
When mitigating and when aggravating
The law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and
when it is aggravating.
RULE: Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property,
by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
The relationship is mitigating when:
• In the crimes of robbery (Art. 294-302)
• Usurpation (Art. 312)
• Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314)
• Arson (Art.
• Swindling or malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
• Under Art. 332, no criminal, but only civil liability
shall result from commission of the crime of theft
Art. 332: Exemption from criminal liability in crimes against property.
Persons exempt from criminal liability
- No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of (1) theft, (2) swindling or estafa, or
(3) malicious mischief or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by the
affinity in the same line
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of another
3. Brothers and sisters and brother-in-law and sisters-in-law,
if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable
to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
When relationship is aggravating:
• In crimes against persons in case where the offended party is
a relative of a higher degree than the offender
• When the offender and the offended party are relatives of
the same level, as killing a brother, brother-in-law, half-
brother, adopted brother
Is relationship not aggravating when the offender killed his brother-
in-law?
Yes, except where there is an admission by the appellant that the
deceased was his:
✓ Brother-in-law
✓ Relationship by affinity should not be deemed to
aggravate the crime in the absence of evidence to show
that the offended arty is of a higher degree in the
relationship than that of the offender.
If the crime against persons is any of the serious physical injuries,
the fact that the offended party is a descendant of the offender is
not mitigating but an aggravating circumstance
• The offense is of serious physical injuries is committed by
the offender against his child (whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his legitimate other descendants)
relationship is aggravating.
• Serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent
upon his child by excessive chastisement
• Higher penalty under the Art. 263: if the offense (any of
the serious physical injuries) is committed against any of
the persons enumerated in Art. 246 (Parricide: Any
person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty or parricide
and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death)
When the crime is less serious physical injuries (Art. 265) or slight
physical injuries (Art. 266), the ordinary rule applies
• Relationship is a mitigating circumstance-if the offended
party is a relative of a lower degree of the offender
• An aggravating circumstance if the offended party is a
relative of a higher degree of the offender
When the crime against persons is homicide or murder,
relationship is aggravating even if the victim of crime is a relative
of lower degree
• Rule applies when crime committed is homicide
 • E.g. killing of a stepdaughter by her stepmother – crime
is not parricide since the relationship is not by blood and
in the direct line
• But if relationship is considered by Court to aggravate the
penalty, notwithstanding the fact that the victim of the
crime was a relative of a lower degree.
Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling
E.g. A son-in-law, believing his wife to be in her father’s house,
attempted to force an entry therein, the relationship is to be
considered in mitigation.
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when
relationship is an element of the offense.
When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the
relationship between the offender and offended party, it is neither
mitigating nor aggravating, because it is inseparable from the
inherent in the offense. Examples:
✓ Parricide
✓ Adultery
✓ Concubinage
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating:
• Like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship is
aggravating regardless of whether the offender is a
relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party
(Why? Due to the nature and effect of the crime
committed, it is considered aggravating although the
offended party is a relative of lower degree- way more
morally wrong)
The rule may be different because of the “other condition attending”
the commission of the crime
• The relationship of brother-in-law is aggravating when
one commits a crime against the other, such relationship
is mitigating when the accused killed his brother-in-law
in view of the conduct pursued by the latter in
contracting adulterous relations with the wife of the
accused.
• The deceased was suffering from an attack of insanity
and the accused, his brother-in-law, in his desire to place
the deceased under control, struck him with a club,
exceeding the limits of his discretion in the heat of the
struggle, it was held that relationship was mitigating
because the cause of maltreatment was the desire to
render service to a relative.
In rape, relationship is a special circumstance which makes the
imposition of the death penalty mandatory
• Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Art. 15
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in rape and
should no longer be applied in view of the amendments
introduced by RA 7659
• Sec. 11 RA 7659: death penalty shall also be imposed if
the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
When the victim is under 18 years old and offender is a
✓ Parent
✓ Ascendant
✓ Step-parent
✓ Guardian
When the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication
✓ Relative by consanguinity or affinity within
The offender’s mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness
the 3rd civil degree
✓ Common-law spouse of the parent of the
Accused’s state of intoxication must be proved
victim
• Evidence will not be satisfactory to warrant a mitigation
INTOXICATION
a. Mitigating – if intoxication is
(1) Not habitual
(2) Is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
▪ Drunkenness/intoxication is mitigating if accidental,
not habitual nor intentional
▪ Intoxication is mitigating where the same was not
habitual nor intentional and the crime was not the
offspring of planning and deliberation but a fatal
improvisation dictated by an impromptu impulse.
b. Aggravating
(1) If intoxication is habitual
▪ A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by
excessive use of intoxicating drinks
▪ Habit should be actual and confirmed
E.g. Accused drinking intoxicating liquor about 7
months and that he had been drunk once or twice a
month is not constituting habitual drunkenness
▪ It not necessary that it be continuous or by daily
occurrence
▪ If habit is with no actual evidence but with testimony
from the victim, then it is a mitigating circumstance
▪ Evidence for intoxication to be aggravating
(2) If its is intentional
▪ Subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
e.g. When A decided to kill B, A planned to commit
the crime by preparing the means to carry it out.
When he was ready to kill B, A drank a glass of wine
and when already intoxicated, he looked for B and
killed him.
NOTE: A drank wine to intoxicate himself after he had
planned the commission of the crime – intoxication is
intentional.
US v. McMann: witness testified hat he saw the
defendant drunk 12x or more. Held: he was a habitual
drunkard
People v. Mabilangan: Drunkenness to be habitual
where the defendants admitted in open court that
before they committed the crime, they drank for 3
hours and often had a drinking party.
▪ When the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its
effects
▪ To find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or
as means to suffocate any remorse.
▪ Aggravating circumstance: the accused who had
plotted the death of the victim, drank wine in order
to embolden himself in the carrying out of his evil
plan, his intoxication cannot be considered as a
mitigating circumstance
of the penalty even if the defendant testified that before
the murder, he took a bottle of wine little by little until he
got drunk and the policemen testified that he smelled of
wine and vomited.
 • It is not proven when the only evidence was that the
defendant had a gallon of tuba with him the time he
committed the crime.
• Intoxication is also not proven when accused alleged that
when he committed the offense charged, he was
intoxicated although he was “not used to be drunk” –
self-serving statement was uncorroborated and
dismissed as devoid of any probative value
• To be mitigating, accused’s state of intoxication must be
proved with satisfactory evidence, in absence of proof to
contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual or
unintentional.
Drunkenness must affect mental faculties
RPC says nothing about the degree of intoxication needed to
mitigate, but to produce such effect, it must diminish the agent’s
capacity to know the injustice of his acts, and his will to act
accordingly
(a) Before drunkenness may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance
✓ It must 1st be established that the liquor taken
by the accused was of such quantity as to have
blurred his reason and deprived him of self-
control
✓ The intoxication should diminish the agent’s
capacity to know the injustice of his acts, and
his will to act accordingly.
(b) If the amount of the liquor that accused had taken was
not of insufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties
✓ Accused is not in state of intoxication
Presumption is that intoxication is accidental
• In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be
presumed that intoxication is not habitual but accidental.
Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation are
not to be taken separately
• Trial court considered them separately as 3 distinct
mitigating circumstances and imposed a penalty one
degree lower
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION/EDUCATION OF OFFENDER
Mitigating – low degree of instruction and education or lack of it
Aggravating – high degree of instruction and education and is
aggravating when the offender avails himself of his
learning in committing the crime.
Lack of instruction, mitigating
• Cannot be taken into account where the defendant
admitted that he studied in the 1st grade in a public
elementary school.
• Art. 15 applies only for those who have not received any
instruction.
• Lack of instruction is not mitigating where the accused
himself finished grade 2 and answered in Tagalog,
questions put to him in English
• Having studied until grade 6 is more than sufficient
schooling to give the accused a degree of instruction as
to properly appraisee him of what is right and wrong.
Lack of sufficient intelligence is required in illiteracy
• Illiteracy and lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary
to invoke the benefit of the alternative circumstance of
lack if instruction – but it is up for the court to determine
• A person who is able to sign his name but is ignorant and
of low intelligence and doesn’t fully realize the
consequences of his criminal act, he may still be entitled
to the mitigating circumstance.
• Person not able to write his name because of lack of
education but is highly or exceptionally intelligent and
mentally alert (applies to street-smart) and can easily
realize the full significance of his acts, he may not invoke
the mitigating circumstance.
Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the offender is
a city resident who knows how to sign his name
Appellant guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstance of
treachery and the aggravating circumstance of equivalent
premeditation.
Lack of instruction must be proved by the defense
✓ Must be proved positively and cannot be based on mere
deduction interference
✓ Needs to be proven as all circumstances modifying
criminal liability should be proved directly and positively.
Question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the first time in the
appellate court – it must be in the trial court
• It is the trial court rather than the appellate court to find and
consider the circumstance of lack of instruction
Ordinarily, low degree of instruction or lack of instruction is mitigating in all
crimes
• Robbery with homicide, murder, homicide, etc.
• In robbery with homicide, the accused was illiterate, lack of
instruction was held to be mitigating.
• In robbery with homicide, belonging to cultural minorities cannot
conceivably reduce, from the subjective point of view, the
defendant’s awareness of the gravity of their offense, such that
killing and robbery is very wrong in its nature
Exceptions:
1. Not mitigating in crimes against property, such as estafa, theft,
robbery, arson, robbery with homicide;
US v. Maqui: lack of instruction was mitigating in theft of large
cattle committed by a member of an uncivilized tribe of Igorots
or in Igorot land.
People v. Macatanda: Accused, a Muslim belonging to a cultural
minority who is being ruled by court that mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction does not apply to theft and
robbery and left the court with no choice but reject the plea of
appellant. Membership in a cultural minority does not per se
imply being an uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of the
offender. It is the only case where lack of instruction was
considered to mitigate liability for theft
2. Not mitigating in crimes against chastity, such as rape and
adultery
▪ No one is so ignorant as not to know that the crime of rape
is wrong and in violation of the law
In Treason…….
✓ Not mitigating, because love of country should be a natural
feeling of every citizen
✓ Accused was charged with treason as his schooling was confined
in studying and finishing caton only
Lack of education and instruction is not mitigating in murder
• Cannot mitigate appellant’s guilt because to kill is forbidden by
natural law which every rational being is endowed to know and
feel.
• Murder committed by a band where there was an abuse of
superior strength - 4 men with knives against one unarmed
person is compensated by lack of instruction, the appellants
being “ignorant people living in a barrio almost 20 km away from
civilization.” – Held: medium degree of the penalty for murder
reclusion perpetua – becomes imposable
High degree of instruction, as aggravating
A lawyer, wo, with abuse of his education and learning, commits estafa
A medical student who was convicted of slander by deed

Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed himself or

took advantage of it in committing the crime
• Doctor, who, using his knowledge, prepared certain kind of poison to
kill his victim in such a way as to avoid detection, may be considered
as having taken advantage of his high degree of instruction and
education.
• The fact that the accused was a lawyer was not considered
aggravating in physical injuries – since he did not take advantage of
his high degree of education