sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim (People v. Sales, G.R. No.

177218, October 3, 2011).

 
 
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.
 
SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION
 
Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation
1. Provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must originate from the offended party; and
3. It must be immediate to the act i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked.
 
Basis
The basis is the diminution of intelligence and intent.
 
Threat need not be offensive and positively strong
Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to inflict
real injury becomes an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and thus,
no longer a mitigating circumstance.
 
PROVOCATION
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
inciting or irritating anyone.
 
“Sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance” vis-à-vis “Threat or provocation as
an element of self- defense”
 
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 (People v. CA, G.R No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001).
 
Sufficiency depends on:
1. The act constituting the provocation
2. The social standing of the person provoked
3. Time and place the provocation took place
 
Reason why the law requires that “provocation must be immediate to the act,”(i.e.,
to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked)
 
If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited
the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and
to exercise self-control. Moreover, the law presupposes that during that interval, whatever
anger or diminished self-control may have emerged from the offender had already
vanished or diminished.
 
As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still under the influence of
the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting under a diminished self-
 control. This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there are two criteria that must be
taken into consideration:
 
1. If there is a material lapse of time and there is no finding that the effect of the threat or
provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime,
then the criterion to be used is based on time element.
 
2. However, if there is that time element and at the same time, there is a finding that at the
time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or
provocation done to him, then, he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
 
 
THREAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED the ACT
 
The threat should not be offensive and positively strong, because, if it is, the threat to
inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense.
 
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
 
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
 The basis is the dimunition of the conditions of voluntariness.
 
NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns the good names and reputation
of the individual. (U.S. v. Ampar, G.R. No. L-12883, November 26, 1917)
 
Requisites of vindication of a grave offense
1. Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degree; and
2. A felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
 
“Offense” contemplated
The word offense should not be construed as equivalent to crime. It is enough that a
wrong doing was committed.
 
Factors to be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not
1. Age;
2. Education; and
3. Social status.
 
Lapse of time allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
 
The word “immediate” in par. 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish text which
uses the term “proxima.” A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing
of the grave offense. It is enough that:
1. The offender committed the crime;
2. The grave offense was done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his
brother or sister, whether natural, adopted or legitimate; and
3. The grave offense is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime.