REPORT ON INVESTIGATED KILLINGS IN RELATION TO THE ANTI-ILLEGAL DRUG CAMPAIGN In excess of necessary and reasonable force, especially when law enforcement outnumbers a lone aggressor, there could be an indication of possible abuse of strength and intent to kill. The intent to kill may be evidenced by the following factors: (a) the motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and, (e) the words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by the offender on the victim.21 The Supreme Court has had the occasion to rule on the plea of self-defense of law enforcement and the intent to kill.22 The location of a deceased aggressor’s gunshot wounds—one at the base of his neck and another in the chest area, for instance— suggests an intent to kill. The gravity of the wounds sustained is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just defend oneself. In another case, the Supreme Court also stated: The right to kill an offender is not absolute, and may be used only as a last resort, and under circumstances indicating that the offender cannot otherwise be taken without bloodshed. The law does not clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill. It may be true that police officers sometimes find themselves in a dilemma when pressured by a situation where an immediate and decisive, but legal, action is needed. However, it must be stressed that the judgment and discretion of police officers in the performance of their duties must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits. In the absence of a clear and legal provision to the contrary, they must act in conformity with the dictates of a sound discretion, and within the spirit and purpose of the law. We cannot countenance trigger-happy law enforcement officers who indiscriminately employ force and violence upon the persons they are apprehending. They must always bear in mind that although they are dealing with criminal elements against whom society must be protected, these criminals are also human beings with human rights.23 21 Abella vs. People, G.R. No. 198400, 07 October 2013 22 PO1 Crispin Ocampo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 194129, 15 June 2015. 23 People vs. SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, 20 September 2000. 13