Alternative Fradejas

circumstances
are those which
must be taken
into
consideration as
aggravating or
mitigating
according to the
nature and No
Article
effects of the jurisprudence
15, No jurisprudence or No jurisprudence or
crime and other or
Par 1 commentaries available commentaries available
conditions commentaries
attending its available
commission.
They are,
relationship,
intoxication and
the degree of
instruction and
education of the
offender
Par 2 The alternative People v Ortega (G.R. No. People v Agliday (G.R. No.
circumstance of 116736) 140794) •Relationship
relationship shall is mitigating
be taken into • An accessory who is a relative • Circumstance of relationship not in crimes
consideration by affinity is exempted from mitigating nor aggravating if it is against
when the criminal liability provided that he an element of the crime property by
offended party is did not profit from the effects of analogy to the
the spouse, the crime. FACTS: provision of
ascendant, • Ricardo’s son, Richard, tried to Art. 332.
descendant, FACTS: pacify the quarrel between
legitimate, • Benjamin Ortega and Manuel Ricardo and his wife, instead of
natural, or Garcia guilty of murder of Andre listening, he shot Richard.
adopted brother Masangkay • Rey, victim’s brother, saw his
or sister, or • Garcia assisted Ortega, his father-appellant shoot his brother
relative by brother-in-law, to conceal the Richard with a shotgun, as he was
affinity in the body of Masangkay to prevent about four (4) meters from them.
same degrees of its discovery.
the offender. • The act of Garcia assisting to RULING:
conceal the body of the crime is • Appellant Ricardo Agliday guilty
an offense that of an accessory of parricide under Art. 246 for
in the crime of homicide. killing his son Richard Agliday
with a shotgun
RULING:
• Garcia cannot be convicted as
an accessory under Art. 20
which states that “The penalties
prescribed for accessories shall
not be imposed upon those who
are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees with the
single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.”
• In this case, Garcia being a
covered relative by affinity of the
principal accused Ortega, he is
legally entitled to the exempting
provision under Art. 20.
Therefore, the alternative
circumstance of relationship, in
relation to Art. 20, exempted
Garcia from criminal liability as
an accessory.

People v Lucas (G.R. No.

108172-73)
• In crimes against chastity, such
as rape, the alternative
circumstance of relationship is
aggravating.

FACTS:
• Jose Lucas guilty of attempted
rape to his daughter Chanda
Lucas

RULING:
• The alternative circumstance of
relationship provided for in
Article 15 of the Revised Penal
Code should be appreciated
against the accused considering
that the offended party, Chanda,
is his descendant. In crimes
against chastity, such as rape,
relationship is aggravating.

• the aggravating circumstance

of relationship in Criminal Case
No. Q-91-18465, the accused
may finally be sentenced to
thirty-four (34) years, four (4)
 months and one (1) day of
reclusion perpetua.

•aggravating circumstance, the

accused may be sentenced in
Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466
to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day of
prision correccional maximum as
minimum to ten (10) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum as maximum.

Par 3 The intoxication People v Ponciano (G.R. No. People v Baroy (G.R. No.
of the offender 86453) 137520-22) No
shall be taken jurisprudence
into • Alternative circumstance of • Alternative circumstance of or
consideration as intoxication is aggravating when intoxication is mitigating if it was commentaries
a mitigating the intoxication is habitual or not habitual nor intentional and available
circumstance intentional. the offender’s mental faculties
when the have affected their capacity to
offender has FACTS: realize the wrongfulness of their
committed a actions.
felony in a state • Accused Eulogio Sanchez,
of intoxication, if together with Orlando Silvestre, and FACTS:
the same is not victim Ricardo Rivera had a • Appellants Alfredo Baroy and
habitual or drinking spree in Ricardo’s house. Felicisimo Nacional took turns
subsequent to raping Emeliza Bueno in a vacant
• Appellant became drunk and was
the plan to lot
under the influence of drugs; that he
commit said • Barot consumed 8 bottles of
do not know what happened
felony but when alcohol, Nacional downed 7
afterward
the intoxication is bottles
habitual or • Rowena and Alicia went • Tricycle driver affirmed
intentional, it downstairs to advise the appellant’s eyes were flaring
shall be accused and companions to go when they blocked the path
considered as an home but accused did not want
aggravating to leave so they forced him to go RULING:
circumstance. home. Accused took out a • Mitigating circumstance of
bladed weapon and lunged at intoxication under Article 15
Alicia paragraph 3 should be
appreciated where the accused
RULING: committed the felony in a state of
• Intoxication not mitigating for intoxication, and there was no
failing to prove that the liquor he sufficient proof that it was habitual
drank impaired his mental or subsequent to the plan to
faculties and that his mental commit the felony.
faculties and that his drinking
was not habitual or subsequent • The quantity consumed by
to the plan to commit the felony appellants could certainly have
affected their capacity to realize or
• Intoxication should be contemplate the wrongfulness of
considered as an aggravating their actions. Therefore, absent
circumstance under Article 15 the habitual or intentional
paragraph 3 for being habitual intoxication, appellants’
but not intentional to the intoxication in the crime of rape
commission of the crime. There should be considered as a
was no showing of the mitigating circumstance.
appellant's intention, determined
by his acts, prior to,
contemporaneous with and
subsequent to the commission
of the crime, to commit robbery.
The appellant's actuation do not
show his intention to commit
robbery. But it was admitted by
the appellant himself that he had
been drinking liquor for a long
time and he took part in at least
10 drinking sessions held in
Ricardo Rivera’s house.

• Therefore, the alternative

circumstance of intoxication in
this case is aggravating. For
appellant’s intoxication was
habitual but was not intentional
to the commission of the crime.