(a) Where relationship is exempting

(i) An accessory who is related to the principal

within the relationship prescribed in Art. 20
except if accessory falls within Par. 1 of Art.
19;
(ii) A legally married person who having
surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another
person who shall inflict upon them physical
injuries of any other kind (i.e. less serious
and slight physical injuries). [Art. 247, RPC]
(iii) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line who
committed the crime of theft, malicious
mischief or swindling (estafa) but theres
civil liability. [Art. 332, RPC]
(b) Where relationship is aggravating
(i) In CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases
where
(a) the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender
(grandson kills grandfather), or
(b) when the offender and the offended
party are relatives of the same level, as
killing a brother, a brother-in-law, a
half-brother or adopted brother.
(ii) When the crime is SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the offended
party is a descendant of the offender,
relationship is AGGRAVATING.
But the serious physical injuries must not be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
(iii) When the crime is LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES if the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree than the offender
(iv) When the crime is HOMICIDE OR MURDER
if the victim of the crime is a relative of lower
degree.
(v) In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY relationship
is always aggravating
(c) Where relationship is mitigating
(i) In Crimes against property, by analogy to
the provisions of Art. 332, relationship is
mitigating in the crimes of robbery (arts.
294-3-2), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent
insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321322, 325-326)
(ii) When the crime is less serious or slight

physical injuries if the offended party is a

relative of a lower degree than the offender.

(2) Intoxication
It is only the circumstance of intoxication which
(a) if not mitigating,
(b) is automatically aggravating.
(a) When mitigating
(1) There must be an indication that
(a) because of the alcoholic intake of the offender,
(b) he is suffering from diminished selfcontrol.
(c) It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink.
(d) Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall
be the basis of the
mitigating circumstance.
(2) That offender is
(a) not a habitual drinker and
(b) did not take alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his
resolve to commit
crime
(b) When Aggravating:
(1) If intoxication is habitual
(2) If it is intentional to embolden offender to commit crime
People v. Camano (1982):Intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor
intentional, i.e., not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if
habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. 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. Intoxication lessens the individual resistance to evil thought and
undermines willpower making its victim a potential evil doer. In this case, the
intoxication of the appellant not being habitual and considering that the said
appellant was in a state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the felony,
the alternative circumstance of intoxication should be considered mitigating.
(3) Degree of Instruction/ Education
(a) Refers to the lack of sufficient intelligenceof and knowledge of the full
significance ofones act
(b) Being illiterate does not mitigate liability if crime committed is one which one
inherently understands
as wrong (e.g.parricide)
(c) To be considered mitigating, degree of instruction must have some reasonable
connection to the offense.
Q: Is degree of instruction or education mitigating?

A:
GR: Lack or low degree of instruction is mitigating in all crimes.
XPN: Not mitigating in:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson,
estafa, threat)
2. Crimes against chastity
3. Murder or homicide
4. Rape
5. Treason because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen,
however unlettered or uncultured he may be. (People v. Lansanas, 82 Phil. 193)
Illustration:
If the offender is a lawyer who committed rape, the fact that he has knowledge of
the law will not aggravate his liability. But if a lawyer committed falsification, that
will aggravate his criminal liability because he used his special knowledge as a
lawyer. He took advantage of his learning in committing the crime.
Q: Is the degree of instruction and education two distinct circumstances?
A: Yes. One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated.
Note: It is not illiteracy alone but the lack of intelligence of the offender that is
considered.
Low degree of education is never aggravating in the manner that high degree is
never mitigating.
Q: Supposing, the crime was done not in a civilized society, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction be a mitigating circumstance?
A: Yes. It is still considered as a mitigating circumstance.