Short answer. No. RA 9262 expressly makes intoxication a prohibited defense, so being drunk, high, or otherwise under the influence when the abuse happened cannot excuse it. Your husband may still deny that the acts occurred, but he cannot argue that alcohol or drugs took away the blame for them.
What the law says
Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act.
RA 9262, Section 27 — Prohibited Defense. Read the full provision →
Intoxication is ruled out by name
Section 27 of Republic Act No. 9262 could hardly be plainer. It provides that being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act. Abusers very often reach for exactly this excuse — that they were not themselves, that the drink or the drugs did it — and the law forecloses that argument in advance. It does not matter how intoxicated he says he was; the state of being under the influence is simply not a recognised answer to a VAWC charge. The responsibility for the violence stays with the person who committed it.
Why this is stricter than the ordinary rule
In general Philippine criminal law, intoxication can sometimes soften a person's liability if it was not habitual and not deliberately sought to embolden the crime. RA 9262 deliberately removes that softening for violence against women and their children. Congress treated the excuse as too easily abused in the home, where drinking is so often bound up with the cycle of abuse. So what might be argued in another kind of case has no footing here. The prohibited-defense rule slams that door shut, and a court applying this Act is not to entertain intoxication as a reason to acquit or to excuse the accused.
What your husband can still raise
Closing off the intoxication excuse does not strip an accused of every defence. He may still deny that the acts happened at all, dispute the evidence, question identity, or argue that the relationship or circumstances the law requires are not present. Those are challenges to whether the offence was actually committed. What Section 27 forbids is the separate move of admitting the conduct but pleading that alcohol or drugs cancel the blame. In other words, he can contest the facts; he cannot rely on his own intoxication as the reason he should walk free.
What this means for the victim
For a complainant, the practical effect is reassuring. The prosecution does not have to prove your husband was sober, and his own account of how much he had taken cannot rescue him. Evidence that he had been drinking or using drugs does not weaken your case; if anything it fills in the picture. This rule binds the accused and guides the court, but it is only one piece of a VAWC case, which still turns on proving the abuse itself. Keeping records — messages, medical findings, incident reports, witnesses — remains the backbone of any complaint, and it is wise to seek help promptly.