Intoxication as an alternative circumstance

INTOXICATION is defined by the Webster Dictionary as the “condition of having physical and mental control markedly diminished by the effects of alcohol or drugs.”

In Philippine Criminal Law, the intoxication of the offender or accused may increase (aggravate) or decrease (mitigate) the punishment for a crime thereby affecting the final penalty against him or her.

If the intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony or crime, it will be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

However, when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance (Article 15, Revised Penal Code).

“The mere fact that the accused has 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 the intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks… but it is not necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence” (Reyes, Revised Penal Code citing People v. Amenamen).

In the case of the United States v. McMann, the Supreme Court found the testimony of one of the witnesses sufficient to establish habituality of drunkenness.

The witness said “I have seen him drunk many times. The first time I knew the accused I saw him drunk 12 or more times… I could not say [how many times he has been drunk]; too many times to recollect” (G.R. No. 2229, July 1, 1905).