RPC BOOK 1 ART 15 alternativecircumstance-.pptx

RPC BOOK 1 ART 15 alternativecircumstance-.pptx

1. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE (ARTICLE 15 OF THE RPC)

2. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE Are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. (these are considered for purpose of imposing civil liability such as moral damages) They are considered only when they influenced the commission of the crime.

3. 3 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES 1. Relationship 2. Intoxication 3. Degree of instruction and education

4. RELATIONSHIP It is considered when the offended S pouse, A scendants, D escendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted B rother or S ister or relative by A ffinity ( SADBroSA ) of the offender. Stepparents and stepchildren are included by analogy but not stepbrothers/stepsisters because the law specified only legitimate, natural or adopted. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. It is mitigating in the crime against property by analogy to Art. 332 which exempts the offender for t heft, e stafa , and m alicious mischief. (TEM)

5. RELATIONSHIP The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and descendant. (People vs. Bersabal , 48 Phil. 439, 441; People vs. Portento , C.A., 38 O.G. 467) The reason for considering these relationships, as stated in the case of People vs. Portento , supra, is that it is the duty of the stepmother to bestow upon her stepdaughter a mother's affection, care and protection. Hence, the effect of the crime of murder committed by the stepmother against her stepdaughter makes the relationship aggravating. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child may also be included, as similar to that of ascendant and descendant.

6. When mitigating and when aggravating. The law is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating . As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332. 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 ) Under Art. 332 of the Code, no criminal, but only civil, liability shall result from commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

7. When mitigating and when aggravating. In view of the provision of Art. 332, when the crime committed is (1) theft, (2) swindling or estafa , or (3) malicious mischief, relationship is exempting. The accused is not criminally liable and there is no occasion to consider a mitigating or an aggravating circumstance. It is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a brother (People vs. Alisub , 69 Phil. 362, 364), a brother-in-law (People vs. Mercado, 51 Phil. 99, 102; People vs. Mendova , 100 Phil. 811, 818), a half-brother (People vs. Nargatan , 48 Phil. 470, 472, 475), or adopted brother. (People vs. Macabangon , 63 Phil. 1061-1062 [ Unrep .])

8. 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. When the crime against persons is any of the serious physical injuries (Art. 263), even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is an aggravating circumstance . If the offense 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. But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement. Art. 263 provides for a higher penalty "if the offense (any of the serious physical injuries) is committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art. 246." Art. 246, which defines and penalizes the crime of parricide, enumerates the following persons: father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants or descendants, or spouse.

9. RELATIONSHIP In serious physical injuries committed against a child due to the parents’ excessive chastisement, relationship is not aggravating . (Art. 263) In crimes against chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is aggravating.

10. RELATIONSHIP Neither aggravating or mitigating if the relationship is an element of the crime such as in parricide and qualified rape. If what was charged was murder or homicide instead of parricide, relationship becomes generic only because the accused cannot be convicted of what was not charged against him.

11. INTOXICATION a. Mitigating — (1) if intoxication is not habitual, or (2) if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony. b. Aggravating — (1) if intoxication is habitual; or (2) if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony). It is intentional when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse.

12. INTOXICATION Should affect the offender’s mental faculties. Mere drinking of liquor prior to the commission of the crime does not necessarily produce a state of intoxication. A person pleading intoxication as a mitigating circumstance must show that: He has taken a quantity of alcoholic beverages prior of the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect eof obfuscating reason. He is not a habitual drinker and did not take alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime (PP vs Pinca )

13. INTOXICATION Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual or intentional. 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. (People vs. Camano, Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 688, 699-700)

14. INTOXICATION For an accused to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication, it must be shown that (a) 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 control, and (b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. (People vs. Boduso , Nos. L-30450-51, Sept. 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 60, 70-71)

15. When the intoxication is habitual The mere fact that the accused had been drinking intoxicating liquor about seven months and that he had been drunk once or twice a month is not constituting habitual drunkenness. A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence. (People vs. Amenamen , C.A., 37 O.G. 2324)

16. DEGREE OF EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTION Would be considered as aggravating or mitigating depends upon the gravity of the crime committed. EXAMPLE: 1. Parricide is as much reprehensible to the educated as to the illiterate.

17. DEGREE OF EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTION It is not literacy alone but intelligence or breeding/instruction that is considered. Even if one is has not been to school but comes from the family of professionals, he must have had some degree of instructions hence, he could easily realize the significance of his act. His lack of schooling then would not be mitigating.

18. DEGREE OF EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTION The high degree of learning should be taken in relation to the crime committed whether his education and training puts him in a better position to commit the crime. High education could be aggravating but is never mitigating Low education could be mitigating but will never be aggravating The fact that the person is professional, cannot mitigate a crime he commits. Conversely, a person who has not gone to school cannot aggravate his crime.

19. CAVEAT: The degree of instruction or education may already have been considered in the penalty prescribed such as in abortion practiced by the physician, in which case it should not be considered anymore.

20. THANK YOU!