G.R. No. 27415 - People vs. Mercado

On the morning of July 23, 1926, in the municipality of Bustos, Province of Bulacan, an attack occurred involving Rufino Lopez and Marcos Mercado.
Rufino Lopez, while gathering ears of corn, was suddenly attacked and wounded on the left side of the abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon.
The depth of the wound extended to the peritoneal cavity, and it was determined by Doctor Estrada that the injury was serious enough to cause death if not properly treated in time.

Marcos Mercado, the accused and brother-in-law of the injured party, was identified as the aggressor.
Rufino Lopez, the injured party, sustained a critical wound during the attack.
Alejandro Mercado, a bystander and relative, intervened during the altercation by disarming the accused and attempting to prevent further assault.

As Rufino Lopez was attacked, he turned around after feeling the wound and noticed the accused coming from behind.
In an attempt to stop the attack, Rufino caught Marcos Mercado’s right hand—the hand wielding the weapon—with his left hand, while using his right hand to try to snatch away the weapon.
Observing the melee from a distance, Alejandro Mercado abandoned his work with a bolo and rushed to the scene.
Alejandro succeeded in disarming the accused by taking away the weapon from his hand.
Notwithstanding the disarmament, Marcos Mercado retrieved another bolo from the ground and attempted to continue the assault on Rufino Lopez.
The accused then negotiated with Alejandro by asking for the weapon taken from him in exchange for the bolo he had picked up, which resulted in Alejandro returning his bolo and delivering the weapon to the accused.
Ultimately, after the exchange and Alejandro’s intervention, Marcos Mercado withdrew from the immediate confrontation.

A complaint was filed charging Marcos Mercado with the crime of frustrated murder.
The lower court convicted him, finding that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present during the commission of the crime.
The initial sentence imposed was fourteen years, eight months, and one day reclusion temporal, along with the payment of indemnity amounting to P780 and the costs of the action.

The injured party’s account stated that the accused attacked him from behind, which would support the presence of treachery.
However, physical evidence such as the position of the wound (on the left side of the abdomen) suggested that the attack was executed while the accused was in front of the victim.
Testimony from Alejandro Mercado contradicted the injured party's version, indicating that Marcos Mercado initially came from behind but then placed himself in front of Rufino Lopez when inflicting the wound.
These inconsistencies raised doubts about the factual basis for asserting the presence of treachery as an aggravating circumstance.

Whether the evidence sufficiently proved the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Did the manner in which the attack was carried out—particularly the position from which Marcos Mercado attacked—meet the requirements for establishing treachery?
Could the contradictory eyewitness testimonies and the physical evidence regarding the wound’s location support or refute the treacherous nature of the attack?

Whether the elements constituting the crime of frustrated homicide were present.

Did the actions of Marcos Mercado amount to an intent to kill, and were they commensurate with an execution of homicide thwarted only by intervening circumstances?
How did the intervention of Alejandro Mercado affect the fulfillment of the crime's consummation?

Was there sufficient and credible evidence to support Marcos Mercado’s claim of acting in legitimate self-defense, particularly in light of the allegation that Rufino Lopez instigated the attack by grabbing his neck?