ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | April 30, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
Ang aking anak ay nakasuhan ng murder sa aming bayan. Nagawa lamang niyang saksakin ang biktima sapagkat muntik na siyang mabangga nito at ito ay dala na rin ng kanyang kalasingan. Aming idinepensa ang kalasingan ng aking anak ngunit ito ay hindi natanggap bilang mitigating circumstance. Hindi ba mitigating circumstance ang pagiging lasing sa paggawa ng krimen? — Iah
Dear Iah,
Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay matatagpuan sa Article 15, Chapter 5 ng Revised Penal Code of the Philippines kung saan tinukoy ang mga tinatawag na alternative circumstances gaya ng intoxication. Sang-ayon sa nasabing probisyon:
“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.”
Malinaw sa nasabing probisyon na ang intoxication ay isang alternative circumstance. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay maaari itong ikonsidera bilang mitigating o aggravating circumstance depende kung ano ang konteksto ng pagiging intoxicated.
Sang-ayon sa Korte Suprema sa kasong People of the Philippines vs. Jeric Cuaresma y Patalud a.k.a. “Jek-Jek”, G.R. No. 252298, 06 July 2022, ang sumusunod ang pamantayan upang ikonsidera na mitigating ang intoxication:
“Intoxication is an alternative circumstance that may either aggravate or mitigate the crime. To be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the intoxication should not be habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. The accused must establish the state of his intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime and prove that he took such a quantity of alcoholic beverage that would blur his reason. Here, no clear evidence was presented to show the degree of Jeric’s intoxication or if it affected his reasoning and intelligence. Jeric merely argues that he “was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident, which may have blurred his reason and affected his impulse.” Yet, it is not sufficient to merely claim intoxication. There must be convincing proof of the nature and effect of his intoxication.”
Malinaw sa pahayag ng Korte Suprema sa nasabing desisyon na kinakailangang mapatunayan ng akusado na ang kanyang intoxication ay hindi kasunod ng planong paggawa ng krimen at ito ay nagdulot upang hindi maging malinaw ang kanyang pag-iisip. Hindi sapat na sabihin lamang na lasing ang isang indibidwal upang ikonsidera bilang mitigating circumstance ang intoxication. Dapat mapatunayan ang lebel ng kanyang kalasingan at epekto nito sa kanyang rason at pang-unawa.
Gaya sa kaso ng iyong anak, hindi sapat na sabihin lamang niya na siya ay lasing nu’ng kanyang nagawa ang krimen. Kinakailangan niyang patunayan, sa pamamagitan ng ebidensya, na ang kanyang kalasingan ay nakaapekto sa kalinawan ng kanyang pag-iisip at dahil dito ay nawalan siya ng rason o naapektuhan ang kanyang pang-unawa.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat