G.R. No. 156037 - Mercury Drug Corporation vs. Baking

A longstanding dispute existed between two neighboring families—the Abandos and the Esmedias—concerning the ownership of adjoining rice lands in Bongbongan, Sibalom, Province of Antique.
Key family members involved were Ciriaco Abando, his wife, and their son Santiago Abando, who resided in the Abando household, while Gregorio Esmedia, father of the accused Ponciano and Mena Esmedia, was closely related by marriage to the Abandos.

On June 24, 1909, at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, Ciriaco Abando instructed his son Santiago to visit a specific point in his rice field to let out water in preparation for planting.
While Santiago was complying with his father’s instructions, Gregorio Esmedia appeared and initiated a quarrel with him.
During the altercation, Gregorio Esmedia drew a dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back.
Despite being wounded, Santiago immediately retaliated by attacking Gregorio with his bolo, inflicting several wounds that caused Gregorio to fall.

Following the initial exchange between Santiago and Gregorio, both accused brothers, Ponciano and Mena Esmedia, arrived at the scene.
The accused contended that they rushed to assist their father, believing that Santiago’s continued aggression would endanger him further.
Ponciano Esmedia claimed that he was met by Ciriaco and Santiago, who attacked him with bolos and clubs, and that he acted in self-defense using a club (contrary to his admission by evidence suggesting the use of a bolo).
The prosecution, however, argued that upon arriving, the accused deliberately killed Santiago because they misconstrued his actions and that later, when Ciriaco approached, they also attacked him, leading to his immediate death.

The prosecution presented Andrea Lactoson, the 60-year-old wife of the deceased Ciriaco, and Julian Alagos, a 16-year-old grandson of Ciriaco, as witnesses.
Although some inconsistencies appeared in cross-examinations regarding whether Ciriaco was present when the accused arrived, both witnesses consistently maintained that Ciriaco did not actively participate in the fight but was attacked by the accused.
The physical evidence, particularly the nature of the wounds inflicted (notably bolo wounds on the heads of Gregorio and Santiago), contradicted the defense’s assertion that only a club was used and supported the prosecution’s version.

Ciriaco Abando had multiple injuries: two wounds on the crown (8 cm and 3 cm in length), a skull fracture presumed from a blunt blow, a wound on the head of 3 cm in depth, another wound below the left ear measuring 3.5 cm by 3 cm, bruising on the left eye, and a wound on the right hand’s palm (3 cm by 2 mm).
Santiago Abando sustained seven wounds, including several inflicted by a cutting instrument—wounds across the head, neck, and on the left hand—demonstrating the lethality and seriousness of the bolo-inflicted injuries.
Gregorio Esmedia’s injuries comprised four wounds: a bruise on the front of the head (5 x 6 cm), a 6 cm long cut across the head, a blunt injury to the breast, and an additional shallow cut accompanied by a bruise on the left arm.

The accused themselves sustained minimal injuries: Ponciano Esmedia suffered a minor head wound, whereas Mena Esmedia escaped without injury.

The actual sequence of events was such that after the altercation between Santiago and Gregorio, the accused arrived and, under the impression that Santiago would continue to threaten their father’s life, they killed Santiago in defense.
The further killing of Ciriaco occurred when, after Santiago had been neutralized and the danger to their father had subsided, Ciriaco approached the scene where he was then fatally attacked.
The legal context involved:

Article 8, No. 5 of the Penal Code, under which the accused were exempt in the killing of Santiago because the act occurred as a genuine response to an immediate threat.
Aggravating circumstances under Article 10, No. 20 of the Penal Code, emphasizing extra severity when the victim is targeted "with insult or in disregard for the respect" due to his age or rank; specifically, Ciriaco, being an 80-year-old man aided by a cane, was viewed as entirely unarmed and non-provocative during the fatal encounter.
Consideration and subsequent dismissal of Article 9, No. 7 as an extenuating circumstance since the provocation stemmed from Santiago and not the elderly Ciriaco.

Whether the accused acted under genuine self-defense when they killed Santiago, given that they believed their father was under imminent threat and that their actions were necessary to prevent further harm.
The credibility of the defense’s assertion that the confrontation with Ciriaco and Santiago was initiated by these parties against their father.

Whether the defense of self-defense extends to the killing of Ciriaco, who was by all accounts not an active participant in the quarrel at the moment of the fatal attack.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of provocation, as contemplated under Article 9, No. 7 of the Penal Code, could reasonably apply to modify the accused’s state of mind when attacking Ciriaco.

Applicability of the Aggravating Circumstance under Article 10, No. 20 of the Penal Code

Whether the fact that Ciriaco was an elderly, vulnerable non-combatant warranted an aggravation of the crime, even in a scenario charged with passion and excitement.
Assessment of the proportionality of the accused's response in relation to the threat posed, in view of the severity of wounds inflicted.

The consistency and contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the whereabouts and actions of Ciriaco during the altercation.
The forensic evidence linking the use of bolo versus club in the incurred injuries, influencing the determination of the precise nature of the accused’s actions.