Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


Concept: Those which may be considered either as mitigating or aggravating according to the nature and effects of thecrime and other conditions attendant to the crime. They must affect the commission of the crime. They are: (1) relationship (2) intoxication and (3) degree of instruction. 2. Relationship : This is taken into account when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate or natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender A. Effect of Relationship In general: i). As basis for a justifying circumstance ii). As an absolutory cause under Articles 20, 247 and 332iii). As an alternative circumstance under Article 15 B. Under Article 15, relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree are not included. However step parents and step children are included. C. When relationship is appreciated as Aggravating: i). Where the offense is a grave felony ii). In crimes against chastity iii) If the offense is a less grave or light felony, it is aggravating if the victim is a relative of an equal or higher degree D. When it is mitigating i) In less grave or light offenses where the victim is a relative of a lower degree ii) In crimes against property as in case by a mother- in- law who stole from his son-in law 3. Intoxication: Presupposes that when the accused committed the crime, he had taken in alcohol in such quantity as to have affected his mental faculties, blurred his reasoning and diminished his self control. A. There is no fixed rule as to the minimum quantity of alcohol in- take required before it is said that a persons mental faculties had been affected. This is dependent on several factors such as the type or kind of liquor taken in i.e. hard vs. soft liquor or wine, brandy vs. gin vs. scotch vs. beer; manner of in-take e.g. straight or on the rocks or food is taken; as well as the personal factors such as sex, age, state of health and other factors affecting the alcohol tolerance of a person. B. Test: (i) external conduct of a person (ii) breathalyzer to determine if a person was driving under the influence of liquor (iii) Rhomberg test and tandem gait, etc C. It is Mitigating if intoxication is not habitual or intentional such that the crime is said to be the result of an impulse or urge or delusion due to the effects of alcohol

D. It is aggravating when the intoxication is intentional i.e. to strengthen the resolve or to use as shield or excuse or habitual i.e the accused is used to taking in alcohol as to be alcoholic. However the drinking of wine as an appetizer is not included. E. When it is proven that the accused was intoxicated when he committed the crime, the presumption is in favor of mitigation and it is for the prosecution to prove it was intentional or habitual. 4. Degree of Instruction and Education. A. What is involved is whether or not the accused finished formal education or schooling. However what is considered is not so much the illiteracy but the level of intelligence. The emphasis is the lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of ones actions i) Some are naturally intelligent and mentally alert though illiterate while some literates are densely ignorant ii). Note that the rule does not apply to persons 15 years of age or below even if naturally intelligent or gifted in secondary school because they are presumed to be incapable of forming criminal intent B. Generally it is mitigating, especially to crimes mala prohibita, but not to crimes universally condemned as evil or those which are mala in se C. Aggravating: when the accused has a high degree of education which he used or availed of to commit or facilitate the commission of the crime i) A law student who used his knowledge to defraud another ii) Physician who kills his patients iii) A handwriting expert who falsifies using his knowledge iv). A Financial Analyst defrauding a business entity v) Computer expert who hacks