This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, a person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason.[26] In short, the defense must show that the intoxication is not habitual, and not subsequent to a plan to commit a felony, and that the accused's drunkenness affected his mental faculties. In this case, the absence of any independent proof that his alcohol intake affected his mental faculties militate against Victoriano's claim that he was so intoxicated at the time he committed the crime to mitigate his liability.[27] | |||||
|
2002-08-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[32] In intoxication, it is necessary that the accused present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason.[33] At the same time, he must prove that he is not a habitual drinker and that he did not take the alcoholic drink purposely to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.[34] We need not belabor jurisprudence to accommodate respondent Judge's argument which in effect posits that not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanctions. So we have ruled and acted | |||||