Chapter Five

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Art. 15. Their concept. A l t e r n a t i v e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e

those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating
or mitigating according to the nature a n d 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 w h e n the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
b r o t h e r o r sister, o r r e l a t i v e b y affinity i n t h e s a m e d e g r e e o f
the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into con-
sideration as a mitigating circumstance w h e n the offender
h a s c o m m i t t e d a felony in a state of intoxication, if t h e s a m e is
not habitual or subsequen t to the plan to c o m m i t said felony;
but w h e n the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

The alternative circumstances are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and

3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Relationship.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration w h e n the offended party is the
(a) spouse,

472
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Relationship

(b) ascendant,
(c) descendant,
(d) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
(e) relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Other relatives included.

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 step-
mother 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 m a k es the relationship
aggravating.

The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child may also

be included, as similar to that of ascendant and descendant.
But the relationship between uncle and niece is not covered by
any of the relationships mentioned. (U.S. vs. Insierto, 15 Phil. 358,
361; People vs. Balondo, No. L-27401, Oct. 3 1 , 1969, 30 SCRA 155,
161; People vs. Lamberte, No. L-65153, July 1 1 , 1 9 8 6 , 1 4 2 SCRA 685,
692-693)

When mitigating and when aggravating.

The law is silent as to w h e n 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 mali-
cious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,

473
Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Relationship

and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and

sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
In view of the provision of Art. 332, when the crime committed
is (1) theft, (2) swindling or estafa, or (3) malicious mischief, relation-
ship 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. 8 1 1 , 818), a half-brother (People vs. Nargatan,
48 Phil. 470, 472, 475), or adopted brother. (People vs. Macabangon,
63 Phil. 1061-1062 [Unrep.])

Is relationship not aggravating when the offender killed his brother-

in-law?
Except an admission by the appellant that the deceased w a s
his brother-in-law, relationship by affinity should not be deemed to
aggravate the crime in the absence of evidence to show that the of-
fended party is of a higher degree in the relationship t h a n that of the
offender. (People vs. Canitan, No. L-16498, J u n e 29, 1963, 8 SCRA
358, 364)

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 m u s t 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

474
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Relationship

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.

When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical

injuries, the ordinary rule applies.

But w h e n the offense committed is less serious physical injuries

(Art. 265); or slight physical injuries (Art. 266), relationship is a
mitigating circumstance, if the offended party is a relative of a lower
degree of the offender; and an a g g r a v a t i ng circumstance, if the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender. Both
Art. 265 and Art. 266 do not have provisions to the contrary, as in
Art. 263.

When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is

aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative of lower degree.
If t h e c o m m i s s i o n of t h e crime a g a i n s t persons resulted in
t h e death of the victim w h o is a relative of a lower degree of t h e
offender, relationship is an a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance. This rule
applies w h e n the crime committed is homicide (Art. 249) or murder.
(Art. 248)
T h u s , t h e k i l l i n g of a s t e p d a u g h t e r by her s t e p m o t h e r is
attended by the circumstance of relationship which is considered as
aggravating. (People vs. Portento, supra) The crime is not parricide,
because the relationship is not by blood and in the direct line; but the
relationship was considered by the Court to aggravate the penalty,
notwithstanding the fact that the victim of the crime was a relative
of a lower degree.

Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.

Where a son-in-law, believing his wife to be in her father's
house, attempted to force an entry therein, the relationship is to be
considered in mitigation. (U.S. vs. Ostrea, 2 Phil. 93, 95)

Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating, when

relationship is an element of the offense.
When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the
relationship between the offender and offended party, it is neither

475
Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Relationship

mitigating nor aggravating, because it is inseparable from and inher-

ent in the offense.
Examples: Parricide, adultery and concubinage.

In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravat-

ing.
In crimes against chastity, like of lasciviousness (Art. 336),
relationship is aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a
relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party.
In rape
Relationship is aggravating in a case where a stepfather raped
his stepdaughter (People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539, 545); or in a case
where a father raped his own daughter. (People vs. Porras, 58 Phil.
578-579; People vs. Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, Jan. 2 2 , 1 9 9 0 , 1 8 1 SCRA
316, 327)

Reason for the difference in the rule.

Why is relationship aggravating in crimes against chastity even
if the offended party is a relative of lower degree?
Because of the nature and effect of the crime committed, it is
considered aggravating although the offended party is a relative of
lower degree. It is not shocking to our moral sense w h e n we hear a
father committed, for instance, the crime of slight physical injury
against his daughter; but it certainly is very shocking w h e n we hear
that a father committed acts of lasciviousness on the person of his
own daughter.

The rule may be different because of the "other condition attending"

the commission of the crime.
While the relationship of brothers-in-law is aggravating w h e n
one commits a crime against the other, such relationship is mitigat-
ing when the accused killed his brother-in-law in view of the conduct
pursued by the latter in contracting adulterous relations with the
wife of the accused. (U.S. vs. Ancheta, 1 Phil. 30, 32)
Also, in a case where the deceased w a s suffering from an attack
of insanity and the accused, his brother-in-law, in his desire to place

476
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Intoxication

the deceased under control, struck him with a club, exceeding the
limits of his discretion in the heat of the struggle, it w a s held that
relationship w a s mitigating because the cause of the maltreatment
was the desire to render service to a relative. (U.S. vs. Velarde, 36
Phil. 9 9 1 , 992-993)

The reason for the difference in the rule is the "other condition
attending" the commission of the crime, which in the Ancheta case is
the conduct of the deceased in having adulterous relations with the
wife of the accused; and in the Velarde case, the desire of the accused
to render service to a relative.

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 ( s u b s e q u e n t to t h e plan to commit a
felony).
It is intentional w h e n the offender drinks liquor fully
knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to
commit a crime or a m e a n s to suffocate any remorse.
D r u n k e n n e s s 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 though t and u n d e r m i n e s will-power m a k i n g its victim a
potential evildoer. (People vs. Camano, Nos. L-36662-63, July 30,
1982, 115 SCRA 688, 699-700)
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)

477
 Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Intoxication

"When the offender has committed a felony in a state of in-

toxication."
The last paragraph of Art. 15 says "when the offender h a s
committed a felony in a state of intoxication,'' by which clause is meant
that the offender's mental faculties must be affected by drunkenness.

Evidence for intoxication to be aggravating.

There is no showing of excessive and habitual use of intoxicating
drinks, or that the accused purposely got drunk in order to commit
the crime, where the witness merely declared that the accused were
drinking liquor on the night in question and were telling stories, sing-
ing, laughing, and shouting and were very jolly, although said witness
further testified that the accused used to drink liquor every Saturday
night, such testimony not being competent proof that the accused
are drunkards whose habit is to get drunk, and whose inebriety h a s
become habitual. In such a case, intoxication is not aggravating but
mitigating. (People vs. Moral, No. L-31139, Oct. 1 2 , 1 9 8 4 , 1 3 2 SCRA
474, 488)

The accused's state of intoxication must be proved.

In People vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 9 3 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 , the defendant testified
that before the murder, he took a bottle of wine and drank little by
little until he got drunk. The policeman who arrested the accused
testified that the latter smelled of wine and vomited. The Court held
that the evidence presented w a s not satisfactory to warrant a mitiga-
tion of the penalty.

Intoxication w a s likewise not completely proved in a case where

the only evidence w a s that the defendant had a gallon of tuba with
him at the time he committed the crime. (People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil.
568, 579)

In another case, intoxication w a s not also proved where the ac-

cused merely alleged that w h e n he committed the offense charged,
he was intoxicated although he w a s "not used to be drunk." His self-
serving statement w a s uncorroborated and w a s dismissed as devoid
of any probative value. (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., No. L-19491, Aug.
30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798, 813-814)

To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication m u s t be

proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in

478
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Intoxication

the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual

or unintentional. (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., supra, at 813, citing People
vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93 and U.S. vs. Fitzgerald, 2 Phil. 419)
The accused merely alleged that w h e n he committed the offense
charged, he w a s intoxicated although he w a s "not used to be drunk."
This self-serving s t a t e m e nt stands uncorroborated. Obviously, it is
devoid of any probative value.
In People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 798, it w a s held that to
be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication m u s t be proved.
Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence (People
vs. Noble, 77 Phil. 93), in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is
presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional. (U.S. vs. Fitzgerald,
2 Phil. 419)

Where the court below found that the appellant was under the
influence of liquor in the afternoon immediately preceding the incident
and there is no evidence indicating that he is a habitual drunkard,
the mitigating circumstance of intoxication should be considered in
favor of the appellant. (People vs. Gongora, Nos. L-14030-31, July 31,
1963, 8 SCRA 472, 482; People vs. De Gracia, No. L-21419, Sept. 29,
1966, 18 SCRA 197, 207)

Note: In these cases, there w a s no evidence that the intoxica-

tion w a s intentional or subsequent to the plan to commit
the crime.

Drunkenness must affect mental faculties.

The Code says nothing about the degree of intoxication needed
to mitigate; but obviously to produce such an effect, it must diminish
the agent's capacity to know the injustice of his acts, and his will to
act accordingly. (Albert)
The amount of wine taken must be of such quantity as to blur the
offender's reason and deprive him of self-control. (People vs. Cabrera,
CA-G.R. No. 13941-R, June 1, 1956)
Before d r u n k e n n e s s m a y be c o n s i d e r e d as a m i t i g a t i n g
circumstance, it must first be established that the liquor taken by
the accused was of such quantity as to have blurred his reason and
deprived him of self-control. It should be such an intoxication that
would diminish the agent's capacity to know the injustice of his acts,

479
 Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Intoxication

and his will to act accordingly. (People vs. Ruiz, Nos. L-33604-05, Oct.
30, 1979, 93 SCRA 739, 760-761)
Thus, if the amount of the liquor the accused had taken was
not of sufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties, he was not in
a state of intoxication. If the accused was thoughtful enough not to
neglect giving Don Vicente Noble his injection, the inference would be
that his intoxication was not to such a degree as to affect his mental
capacity to fully understand the consequences of his act. (People vs.
Noble, 77 Phil. 93, 101-102)
Also, a l t h o u g h t h e accused had t a k e n s o m e liquor on t h e
day of t h e shooting, if he w a s aware of everything t h a t occurred
on t h a t day and he w a s able to give a detailed account thereof,
intoxication is not mitigating. (People vs. Buenaflor, C.A., 53 O.G.
8879)
And although the persons participating in the act of misap-
propriating public funds may, for some time prior thereto, had been
drinking freely of intoxicating liquor, yet if they were sufficiently sober
to know what they were doing w h e n committing the unlawful act, the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be considered. (U.S.
vs. Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4 [Syllabus])

"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. A m e n a m e n , C.A.,
37 O.G. 2324)

In U.S. vs. McMann, 4 Phil. 5 6 1 , 565, a witness testified that

he saw the defendant drunk twelve times or more. Held: He w a s a
habitual drunkard.

D r u n k e n n e s s w a s also found to be h a b i t u a l w h e r e t h e de-

f e n d a n t s a d m i t t e d i n open court t h a t before t h e y c o m m i t t e d t h e
crime, t h e y drank for t h r e e h o u r s a n d often h a d a d r i n k i n g party.
(People v s . M a b i l a n g a n , No . L - 4 8 2 1 7 , J a n . 3 0 , 1 9 8 2 , 1 1 1 SCRA
398, 403)

480
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Intoxication

"Or subsequent to the plan to commit a felony."

Illustration:

A decided to kill B. A planned to commit the crime by preparing

the m e a n s to carry it out. When he w a s ready to kill B, A drank a
glass of wine and w h e n already intoxicated, he looked for B and
killed him. Note that A drank wine to intoxicate himself after he had
planned the commission of the crime. In this case, the intoxication is
intentional.

Intoxication is mitigatin g where the same was not habitual

nor intentional and the crime w a s not the offspring of planning and
deliberation but a fatal improvisation dictated by an impromptu
impulse. (People vs. Abalos, No. L-31726, May 31, 1974, 57 SCRA
330, 338)

Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is aggravating when

subsequent to the plan to commit the crime.
In a case where the trial court found the commission of the crime
of murder to be attended by the mitigating circumstance that the
accused was drunk, but not habitually so, it w a s held that it appearing
that the accused, who had plotted the death of the victim, drank
wine in order to embolden himself in the carrying out of his evil plan,
his intoxication cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
(People vs. Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334, 344)

Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication.

As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that
when a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of will
power is impaired.
As an aggravating circumstance, because it is intentional, the
reason is that the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his courage
to commit a crime.
It is aggravating w h e n intoxication is habitual, because the
constant use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual resistance
to evil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a
potential evildoer against whose activities, society has the right
for its own protection to impose a more severe penalty. (People vs.
Amenamen, supra)

481
Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

Presumption is that intoxication is accidental.

The prosecution must prove that the intoxication of the offender
is habitual or intentional. (People vs. Dungka, 64 Phil. 421, 426)
In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that
intoxication is not habitual but accidental, and the fact that the ac-
cused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime must
then be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (U.S. vs. Fitzgerald,
2 Phil. 419, 422; People vs. Dacanay, 105 Phil. 1265, 1266 [Unrep.],
citing People vs. Dungka, supra)

Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation

are not to be taken separately.
As non-habitual intoxication implies a disturbance of the reason-
ing powers of the offender, his lack of instruction cannot have any
influence over him, and obfuscation which h a s the same effect on his
reasoning powers cannot be considered independently of non-habitual
intoxication. (People vs. Baterna, 49 Phil. 996, 997-998)
The trial court considered the m separately as three distinct
mitigating circumstances and imposed a penalty one degree lower.
The Supreme Court considered the m as one mitigating circumstance
only and modified the penalty imposed by the trial court by raising
it and imposing the proper penalty in the m i n i m u m period.

Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally
mitigating. High degree of instruction and education is aggravating,
when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the
crime.

Lack of instruction, as mitigating.

Lack of instruction cannot be t a k e n into account where the
defendant admitted that he studied in the first grade in a public
elementary school. Art. 15 applies only to h im who really h a s not
received any instruction. (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil. 548, 552)
But the accused lacks education and instruction, if he did not
finish even the first grade in elementary school. (People vs. Limaco,
88 Phil. 35, 44)

482
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

Lack of instruction is not mitigating where the accused fin-

ished Grade Two and a n s w e r e d in Tagalog, questions put to him
in English. (People vs. Luna, No. L-28812, July 3 1 , 1974, 58 SCRA
198, 208)
Having studied up to sixth grade is more than sufficient schooling
to give the accused a degree of instruction as to properly apprise him
of what is right and wrong. (People vs. Pujinio, No. L-21690, April
29, 1969, 27 SCRA 1185, 1189-1190)

Lack of sufficient intelligence is required in illiteracy.

Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are
necessary to invoke the benefit of t h e alternative circumstance of
lack of instruction, the determination of which is left to the trial
court.
A person able to sign his n a m e but otherwise so densely ignorant
and of such low intelligence that he does not fully realize the conse-
quences of his criminal act, m a y still be entitled to this mitigating
circumstance. On the other hand, another person unable to write
because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities, may yet be
highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert that he easily
realizes the full significance of his acts, in which case he may not
invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor. (People vs. Ripas,
95 Phil. 63, 70-71; People vs. Geronimo, No. L-35700, Oct. 15, 1973,
53 SCRA 246, 261-262)
Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a mitigating circum-
stance. There m u s t be also lack of intelligence. (People vs. Retania,
No. L-34841, Jan. 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 2 0 1, 221; People vs. Abanes,
No. L-30609, Sept. 28, 1976, 73 SCRA 44, 47)

Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the of-

fender is a city resident who knows how to sign his name.
Appellant is guilty of murder with the qualifying circumstance
of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of evident premedi-
tation. The mitigating circumstance of lack of sufficient instruction
cannot be justified as appellant is a city resident and even knows
how to sign his name. The judgment is modified and appellant is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. (People vs. Cabrito, 101 Phil. 1253,
1254 [Unrep.])

483
 Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

Lack of instruction must be proved by the defense.

The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction m u s t be
proved positively and directly and cannot be based on mere deduction
or inference. (People vs. Bernardo, C.A., 40 O.G. 1707)
Lack of education must be proved positively and cannot be based
on mere deduction or inference. (People vs. Retania, supra, citing
People vs. Bernardo, supra, and People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil. 64)
Lack of instruction needs to be proven as all circumstances
modifying criminal liability should be proved directly and positively.
(People vs. Macatanda, No. L-51368, Nov. 6 , 1 9 8 1 , 1 0 9 SCRA 35, 38,
citing People vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154)
In the absence of any basis on record on which to judge the degree
of instruction of the accused, no evidence having been taken relative
thereto because he entered a plea of guilty, the circumstance of lack of
instruction cannot be mitigating. (People vs. Macatanda, supra, at 39)

The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the

first time in appellate court.
It is for the trial court rather t h a n the appellate court to find
and consider the circumstance of lack of instruction. (People vs. Sari,
99 Phil. 1040 [Unrep].)
When the trial court did not mak e any findings as to the degree
of instruction of the offenders, on appeal that alternative circumstance
cannot be considered in fixing the penalty to be imposed on the ac-
cused-appellants. (People vs. Diaz, No. L-24002, J a n . 2 1 , 1974, 55
SCRA 178, 187)

The trial court's appreciation of lack of instruction as a mitigat-

ing circumstance w a s not disturbed on appeal because the said court
w a s in a position to gauge appellant's level of intelligence from his
appearance, demeanor and manner of answering questions. (People
vs. Manuel, Nos. L-23786-87, Aug. 2 9 , 1 9 6 9 , 29 SCRA 337, 346)

Ordinarily, low degree or lack of instruction is mitigating in

all crimes.
Lack of instruction or low degree of it is appreciated as mitigat-
ing circumstance in almost all crimes. (U.S. vs. Reguera, 41 Phil. 506,

484
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

520 [robbery with homicide]; People vs. Baltazar, No. L-30557, March
28, 1980, 96 SCRA, 556, 562-563 [Anti-Subversion Law]; People vs.
Talok, 65 Phil. 696, 707 [murder]; People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil. 64, 66
[homicide])
Exceptions:

1. Not mitigating in crimes against property, such as estafa,

theft, robbery, arson. (U.S. v s . Pascual, 9 Phil. 4 9 1, 495
[estafa]; People vs. De la Cruz, 77 Phil. 444, 448; People
vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil. 154, 155-156 [robbery]; People
vs. S a n Pedro, No. L-44274, J a n . 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 306,
310 [robbery w i t h homicide]; People vs. Condemena, No.
L-22426, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 910, 920 [robbery with
homicide])

B u t in U.S. vs. Maqui, 27 Phil. 97, 101, lack of in-

struction w a s mitigating in theft of large cattle committed
by a member of an uncivilized tribe of Igorots or in Igorot
land.
But see People vs. Macatanda, No. L-51368, Nov. 6,
1 9 8 1 , 1 0 9 SCRA 3 5 , 3 8 , 3 9 , where the accused claimed that
he w a s a Moslem belonging to a cultural minority, and
the high court said: "Some later cases which categorically
held that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction
does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery leave us with
no choice but to reject the plea of appellant. Membership
in a cultural minority does not per se imply being an
uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of the offender, which
is the circumstance that induced the Supreme Court in the
Maqui case, to apply lack of instruction to the appellant
therein who w a s charged also with theft of large cattle.
Incidentally, the Maqui case is the only case where lack of
instruction was considered to mitigate liability for theft, for
even long before it, in U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491, a 1908
case, lack of instruction was already held not applicable
to crimes of theft or robbery. The Maqui case was decided
in 1914, when the state of civilization of the Igorots has
not advanced as it had in reaching its present state since
recent years, when it certainly can no longer be said of
any member of a cultural minority in the country that he
is uncivilized or semi-uncivilized."
485
Art. 15 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

In robbery with homicide, where the accused was

illiterate, lack of instruction was held to be mitigating.
(People vs. Patricio, 79 Phil. 227,234; People vs. Mantawar,
80 Phil. 817, 823)
But in another case, it was held that the benefit of lack
of instruction is unavailing to mitigate the crime of robbery
with homicide as this circumstance is not applicable to
the crime of theft or robbery, and much less to the crime
of homicide. No one, however unschooled he may be, is so
ignorant as not to know that theft or robbery, or assault
upon the person of another is inherently wrong and a
violation of the law. (People vs. Enot, No. L-17530, Oct.
30, 1962, 6 SCRA 325, 329)
In a later case, also of robbery with homicide, it was
also held that belonging to the cultural minorities cannot
conceivably reduce, from the subjective point of view, the
defendants' awareness of the gravity of their offense, for
robbery and killing are by their very nature just as wrong to
the ignorant as they are to the enlightened. (People vs. Salip
Mania, No. L-21688, Nov. 2 8 , 1 9 6 9 , 30 SCRA 389, 397)
2. Not mitigating in crimes against chastity, such as rape and
adultery. No one is so ignorant as not to know that the
crime of rape is wrong and in violation of the law. (Malesa
vs. Director, 59 Phil. 406, 408; U.S. vs. Borjal, 9 Phil. 140,
141; People vs. Lopez, 107 Phil. 1039, 1042)

How about in treason?

Not mitigating, because love of country should be a natural
feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or uncultured he may
be. (People vs. Lansanas, 82 Phil. 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 ; People vs. Cruz, 88 Phil.
684, 687-688)

But in another case, the accused w a s also charged with treason.

His schooling w a s confined in studying and finishing caton only. Held:
Lack of instruction is mitigating. (People vs. Marasigan, 85 Phil. 427,
431)

Lack of education and instruction is not mitigating in murder.

Lack of education and instruction cannot mitigate appellant's
guilt because to kill is forbidden by natural law which every rational

486
 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 15
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

being is endowed to know and feel. (People vs. Mutya, G.R. Nos. L-
11255-56, Sept. 30, 1959 [Unrep.])
Exception:

Although ordinarily lack of instruction is not considered as

an extenuating circumstance in the crime of homicide or murder,
nevertheless, in the instant cases, the same may be so considered
because the crimes would probably not have been committed if the
accused were not so ignorant as to believe in witchcraft. The trial
court likewise did not err in failing to consider the lack of instruction
as mitigating circumstance in the crime of arson as the same does
not extenuate offenses against property. (People vs. Laolao, G.R. Nos.
L-12978-80, Oct. 3 1 , 1959 [Unrep.])
It is also considered m i t i g a t i n g in murder in the following
case:
The crime w a s murder qualified by evident premeditation, the
defendants h a v i n g "for a long time" s o u g h t t h e encounter. There
w a s also abuse of superior strengt h four m e n with knives against
one unarmed person. But this is compensated by lack of instruction,
t h e s e a p p e l l a n t s being "ignorant people living in a barrio almost
20 k i l o m e t e rs a w a y from civilization." Consequently, the m e d i u m
degree of the p e n a l t y for murder reclusion perpetua becomes
imposable. (People v s . M a n t a l a, G.R. No. L-12109, Oct. 3 1 , 1959)

High degree of instruction, as aggravating.

Examples:
A lawyer, who, with abuse of his education and learning, com-
mits estafa.
A medical student who was convicted of slander by deed. (People
vs. Roque, C.A., 40 O.G. 1710)

Degree of instruction is aggravating when the offender availed

himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime.
Thus, a doctor, who, using his knowledge, prepared certain
kind of poison to kill his victim in such a way as to avoid detection,
may be considered as having taken advantage of his high degree of
instruction and education.

487
Art. 16 ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Degree of Instruction and Education of Offender

But the fact that the accused was a lawyer was not considered
aggravating in physical injuries. (People vs. Sulit, CA-G.R. No. 21102-
R, Sept. 29, 1959) He did not take advantage of his high degree of
education.