This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is x x x equally settled that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense and are used only to help secure substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated. They should be liberally construed so that litigants can have ample opportunity to prove their claims and thus prevent a denial of justice due to technicalities.[22] | |||||
|
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] | |||||