“First, before the alternative circumstance of intoxication can be considered, the fact of intoxication must first be clearly established. To establish this fact, there must be evidence of acts or circumstances indicative of intoxication, i.e. slurred speech, stumbling, or a swaying walk, other than mere consumption of alcohol. Neither is the quantity of consumed alcoholic drinks sufficient proof of the fact of intoxication, as the alcohol tolerance for each person may differ. In other words, proof of alcohol intake alone, regardless of quantity, does not ipso factoequate to intoxication.
Second, once the fact of intoxication is established from the factual milieu of the case or proved by the prosecution or the accused, the court is mandated to appreciate it as an aggravating circumstance when it is habitual or intentional; and mitigating circumstance when it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. There is no need for the accused to prove that the alcoholic drinks affected his/her mental faculties before he/she can vail himself/herself of it as a mitigating circumstance.”[1]
[1] Ilayat v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 259916, July 25, 2025