G.R. No. 21390 - People vs. Francisco

The charged offense occurred on July 14, 1993, in Barangay Manlucugan, Vinzons, Camarines Norte.
Efren Mendoza y Salvador was accused of killing Anchito A. Nano by hacking him with a bolo, which resulted in the victim’s instantaneous death.
An Information was filed on September 9, 1993, charging the accused with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with allegations of treachery and evident premeditation.

At around 7:00 p.m., Anchito Nano and his companion Marianito Rafael arrived at the residence of Efren Mendoza, where Emily Mendoza (the accused’s wife) was present.
The visitors had asked for a drink, and while engaged in conversation, Nano was seen destroying part of the house (e.g., breaking windows).

Efren Mendoza suddenly appeared and hacked Nano on the nape.
Marianito Rafael fled the scene in fear.
Barangay Kagawad Pedro Saman, accompanied by other local officials, later discovered the victim in a kneeling position with multiple hack wounds—three wounds on the nape and two at the back of the body.

The crime scene showed disarray in the house and absence of the weapon near the victim.
SPO4 Silverio Rafael’s testimony confirmed that no weapon was found in the vicinity of the body.

Efren Mendoza surrendered to the authorities later that night at the police station, as confirmed by law enforcement officers.

The defense presented six witnesses, including the accused, his wife Emily Mendoza, and his son Ernie Mendoza, to support the plea of self-defense and defense of a relative.
Key elements of the defense narrative were:

Emily Mendoza testified that the victim and his companion had arrived at their house; Nano subsequently destroyed two windows.
Efren Mendoza claimed that while he was using the comfort room outside the house, he heard his wife’s cry for help and saw Nano forcibly trying to enter the house.
The accused stated that he grabbed a bolo, saw his son cry “Ama, tinaga ako!” and intervened to prevent Nano from attacking his family.
Ernie Mendoza testified that he sustained a head wound during the chaos, although inconsistencies were noted regarding the exact circumstances of this injury.

Witnesses such as Bayani Aguilar (police chief), Dr. Gaudencio Albano (attending physician), and Carmen Herico (neighbor) corroborated parts of the defense’s claim regarding the sequence of events but did not fully substantiate the self-defense claim.

The trial court rejected the accused’s plea of self-defense and defense of a relative.

It noted that the physical evidence—specifically, the location and nature of the wounds (found mainly on the back of the victim)—contradicted the defendant’s version of a defensive act.
Eyewitness testimony established that the attack was sudden and the victim was not armed, suggesting a premeditated hacking rather than an act of self-preservation.

Despite the accused’s voluntary surrender being presented as a mitigating circumstance, the trial court maintained that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not offset by voluntary surrender.
The trial court rendered a decision sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua, with additional awards for death indemnity and moral damages, all of which were later addressed on appeal.

Whether Efren Mendoza successfully established the requisites for self-defense and defense of a relative.
Whether the evidence credibly demonstrated that Anchito Nano initiated the aggression that justified a defensive response.

Whether the trial court erred in its finding that the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been given greater weight in the imposition of the penalty, particularly in relation to the qualifying circumstance of treachery.