Short answer. No. Section 27 states plainly that being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance is not a defence under the VAWC law. Intoxication does not excuse the acts the law penalises, whether the substance involved was alcohol or drugs.
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 →
The rule is unqualified
Section 27 is one of the shortest and bluntest provisions in the Act, and that is by design. 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. There is no exception, no threshold of intoxication that changes the result, and no distinction between substances. The claim 'I was too drunk to know what I was doing', offered as a reason not to be held liable, is exactly what this section forecloses for offences under the VAWC law.
Why the law shuts this door
In ordinary criminal law, a state of intoxication can sometimes be raised in mitigation where it was not habitual or intentional. The VAWC law deliberately departs from that. Removing intoxication as a defence reflects a policy judgment that a person who drinks or takes drugs and then abuses a partner or child should not be able to convert that very intoxication into an excuse. The section closes off an argument that would otherwise let the abuser benefit from having been under the influence at the time.
How broad the exclusion is
The wording sweeps in more than drink. It covers alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance. So the exclusion is not confined to the obvious cases; it extends to any substance that alters the mind. Whether the person was drunk, high on an illegal drug, or affected by some other mind-altering substance, the answer under this section is the same. The breadth is intentional, leaving no room to reframe the same basic excuse by pointing to a different substance.
What it does and does not decide
Section 27 removes one particular argument; it does not by itself establish that any offence was committed — that still depends on proving the elements of the specific act charged. What it means for a person on the receiving end of the 'he was drunk' explanation is that the explanation, standing alone, is not a legal defence to VAWC liability. Anyone involved in such a situation, on either side, should take legal advice on the actual charge rather than treat intoxication as settling the question one way or the other.