This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-04-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| For intoxication to be considered as mitigating circumstance, it must be shown that the intoxication impaired the will power of the accused and that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.[24] The person pleading intoxication must prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason.[25] This, the appellants failed to do. The records are bereft of any evidence that the quantity of liquor they had taken was of such quantity as to affect their mental faculties. On the contrary, the fact that appellants could recall details of what had transpired after their drinking session is the best proof that they knew what they were doing during that occasion. The deception, the device, the place and manner of perpetrating the crime all point to the fact that appellants had complete control of their minds. | |||||