This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The appreciation of the ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and passion and obfuscation under Article 13, paragraphs 4 and 6,[39] have no factual basis. Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense is different from sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending himself; while as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party. Besides, only one mitigating circumstance can arise out of one and the same act.[40] Assuming for the sake of argument that the blowing of horns, cutting of lanes or overtaking can be considered as acts of provocation, the same were not sufficient. The word "sufficient" means adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.[41] Moreover, Generoso's act of asking for an explanation from Tangan was not sufficient provocation for him to claim that he was provoked to kill or injure Generoso.[42] | |||||