Practice question
Pablo relies on witnesses who describe his slurred speech and swaying walk at the time of the felony. The court finds actual intoxication proved, nonhabitual, and unrelated to a prior criminal plan. The prosecutor nevertheless insists that Pablo must additionally prove that alcohol impaired his mental faculties before mitigation is legally possible. Under the 2025 Ilayat main decision, which is correct?
- The additional impairment requirement remains indispensable in every case.
- The court must acquit Pablo because actual intoxication is proved.
- No separate proof of affected mental faculties is required once intoxication and the relevant mitigating conditions are established.
- A prior drinking session always establishes a criminal plan.
- The court must ignore the observed behavior and count bottles only.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 15 and 62.
- Ilayat v People, G.R. No. 259916, July 25, 2025, en banc main decision, intoxication proof: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70091
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.