Relationship taken into consideration When the offended party is the: (SADBroSRA) 1. Spouse;
2. Ascendant; 3. Descendant;
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Brother or Sister;
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender; and
6. Other relatives included by Analogy to ascendants and descendants. e.g. Stepparents – It is their duty to bestow upon their stepchildren a mother/father’s affection, care and protection.
Appreciation of relationship 1. Exempting:
a. In the case of an accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed in Article 20.
b. In Art. 247, a spouse will not incur criminal liability if less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries was inflicted after having surprised the his or her spouse or paramour or mistress committing actual sexual intercourse. c. Under Art. 332, in the crime of theft,
malicious mischief and swindling or estafa, there is no criminal liability if the offender is related to the offended party as:
i. spouse, ascendant, or descendant, or relatives by affinity in the same line; NOTE: Stepfather and stepmother are included as ascendants by affinity (People v. Alvares, 52 Phil. 65).
ii. the widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another. iii. if the offender is a brother or sister or
brother-in-law or sister-in-law of the offended party and they are living together.
NOTE: Article 332 is exclusive. Hence, if the crime is robbery or estafa through falsification, this Article does not apply. Thus, if the son committed estafa through falsification of a commercial document against his father, he is criminally liable for the crime of falsification (Reyes, 2012). The exemption does not include strangers who cooperate in the commission of the crime.
2. Mitigating:
a. In crimes against property by analogy to Art. 332 exempting from criminal liability for theft, estafa and malicious mischief. Thus, Relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts 321-
322, 325-326) (Reyes, 2008).
b. In crimes against persons when it comes to physical injuries, it is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree (Reyes, 2008).
c. In cases in infanticide (Art. 255) and abortion (Art. 258), the killing or abortion to conceal dishonor is mitigating circumstance. In infanticide, the concealing is extenuating also maternal grandparents. (Boado, 2008).
d. In trespass to dwelling (U.S. v. Ostrea, G.R.
No. 1114, March 31, 1903).
3. Aggravating:
a. In crimes against person
i. Where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender. ii. When the offender and the offended
party are relatives of the same level as killing a brother; (El Pueblo de
Filipinas v. Alisub, G.R. No. 46588, January 20, 1940), brother-in-law (People v. Mercado, G.R. No. 27415, Novermber 29, 1927), and a half-
brother (People v. Nargatan, G.R. No.
24619-20, December 16, 1925) or
adopted-brother (People v. Mangcol,
G.R. No. L-2544, June 30, 1950).
iii. In case of murder or homicide, if the act resulted in the death of the victim even if the accused is a relative of a lower degree
iv. In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his stepdaughter (People v. De Leon, G.R.
No. 26867, August 10, 1927) or in a
case where a father raped his own daughter (People v. Porras, G.R. No.
38107, October 16, 1933).
b. In physical injuries
i. Serious physical injuries – even if the
offended party is a descendant of the offender; except when committed by the parent who shall inflict physical injuries to his child due to excessive chastisement.
ii. Less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries – if the offended party
is a relative of a higher degree of the offender;
c. In crimes against chastity INTOXICATION
Intoxication as an alternative circumstance It is alternative because it impairs the exercise of one’s will-power. When a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of will power is impaired and his resistance to evil is lessened (People v. Tambis, 311 SCRA 1982).
Intoxication considered mitigating If intoxication is:
1. Not habitual;
2. Not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony; or
3. At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of certain degree of control.
NOTE: To be mitigating, the state of intoxication of the accused must be proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non- habitual or unintentional.
Intoxication considered aggravating If intoxication is:
1. Habitual; or
2. Intentional (subsequent to the plan to
commit a felony).
NOTE: The moment intoxication is shown to be habitual or intentional to the commission of the crime, the same will immediately aggravate, regardless of the crime committed.
In both circumstances, the liquor must be so intoxicating as to diminish a man’s rational capacity.
Person considered as “habitual drunkard” He 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 (People v. Camano, G.R.
No. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982).
Basis of whether intoxication is mitigating or not
The basis is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender, not the quantity of the alcoholic drink he had taken in.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), being under the influence of an alcohol, any illicit drug or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense (Sec. 27).
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION