Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code: Relationship, intoxication and education
Status: In force
What does Article 15 say?
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 is 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 circumstance 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.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 15 covers three "alternative circumstances": the relationship between the offender and the offended party, the offender's intoxication, and the offender's degree of education. Each one can make the penalty lighter or heavier, depending on the crime and how it was committed. Being drunk is never an excuse: it only moves the penalty up or down, and only after the intoxication itself is proven.
The first paragraph reads:
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.
How does it work in real life?
Lito: a fight after a few beers
Lito drank two bottles of beer with friends and then got into a fight. Proof that he drank is not enough. Under Ilayat, the court first needs evidence of signs of actual intoxication, such as slurred speech or stumbling. Only then can his intoxication lower the penalty, if it was not habitual or planned.
Boyet: drinking to gain courage
Boyet plans to attack a rival and drinks first to get his nerve up. Because he drank after planning the attack, his intoxication cannot be mitigating under Article 15. If the court also finds it intentional, the article treats it as aggravating.
Nestor: a habit of drinking
Nestor is drunk almost every day and commits a crime while drunk. If the court finds his intoxication habitual, it is aggravating, not mitigating.
What does this mean in practice?
- Not an excuse. No part of Article 15 frees a person from liability. It only makes the penalty lighter or heavier under the rules of Articles 63 and 64.
- Evidence matters. Witnesses who saw how the accused walked or spoke can matter more than how much he drank.
- See also the question on whether being drunk is a defense and the topic page on criminal liability basics.
- The court decides. Whether a circumstance is proven, and how it is weighed against others, is for the court. See Article 14 for aggravating circumstances and how periods work, and find legal help.
When does intoxication lower or raise the penalty?
The article gives the rule:
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance 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.
| Kind of intoxication | Effect |
|---|---|
| Not habitual, and not taken after a plan to commit the felony | Mitigating |
| Habitual | Aggravating |
| Intentional | Aggravating |
| Taken after a plan to commit the felony | Not mitigating |
How must intoxication be proven?
In Ilayat v. People (2025), the Supreme Court En Banc set out the test to settle what it called an "apparent inconsistency" between the Code and earlier cases:
- First, prove the fact of intoxication. There must be evidence of acts or circumstances showing intoxication, "i.e., slurred speech, stumbling, or a swaying walk, other than mere consumption of alcohol." The Court said that "proof of alcohol intake alone, regardless of quantity, does not ipso facto equate to intoxication", because alcohol tolerance differs from person to person.
- Then apply Article 15. Once intoxication is established, the court must treat it as aggravating when habitual or intentional, and as mitigating when it is not habitual or not subsequent to a plan. The Court said there is no need for the accused to prove that the drinks affected his mental faculties before it can be mitigating.
Earlier rulings, such as Bacerra v. People (2017), had required proof that the accused's mental faculties and willpower were impaired. Ilayat clarified the rule as described above. In Ilayat itself, the fact of intoxication was not proven, so the Court did not consider it in the accused's favor.
Is intoxication a defense under special laws?
Article 15 applies to felonies under the Revised Penal Code. Special laws can have their own rules. For example, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9262 (violence against women and their children) says that being under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs or other mind-altering substances "shall not be a defense under this Act."
When does relationship count?
The second paragraph lists the relatives:
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
Article 15 does not say when relationship aggravates and when it mitigates. It says only that the court weighs it "according to the nature and effects of the crime". In some crimes, the relationship is already part of the definition. Killing a parent, child or spouse, for example, is parricide under Article 246, so the relationship defines the crime itself. Article 62 also says that circumstances from the offender's "private relations with the offended party" affect only the persons to whom they apply.
What about education?
The third alternative circumstance is "the degree of instruction and education of the offender". The article names it without saying when it lowers or raises the penalty; that is left to the court on the facts of each case.
Frequently asked questions
What are alternative circumstances?
Article 15 says they are circumstances that must be taken into account as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions of its commission. There are three: relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Is being drunk a defense to a crime?
No. Intoxication does not free a person from criminal liability. Under Article 15 it can only lower the penalty as a mitigating circumstance, or raise it as an aggravating circumstance, once the fact of intoxication is proven.
When is intoxication mitigating and when is it aggravating?
Article 15 makes it mitigating when it is not habitual and not subsequent to a plan to commit the felony. It is aggravating when it is habitual or intentional.
Is proof that the accused drank alcohol enough?
No. In Ilayat v. People (2025), the Supreme Court En Banc said there must be evidence of signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, stumbling or a swaying walk. Proof of alcohol intake alone, regardless of quantity, is not proof of intoxication.
Which relatives count for the circumstance of relationship?
Article 15 names the spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, and relatives by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?