This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance or as an essential element of self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone;[12] it is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying;[13] the provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act[14] and should immediately precede the act.[15] This third requisite of self-defense is present: (1) when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor; (2) when, even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient; (3) when even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or (4) when even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.[16] | |||||