G.R. No. 172027 - Go, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

On March 8, between 2 and 3 in the afternoon, a group of individuals, including the victim Anselmo Badan and the defendant Francisco Mendac, were engaged in a gambling session at the house of Nicolasa Pinol in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros.
A quarrel erupted between the victim and the defendant during the gambling session.
The altercation was temporarily halted when Lt. Crispulo Patron, along with other bystanders, intervened and separated the disputants.

After the intervention at Nicolasa Pinol's house, both parties returned to their respective homes.
Approximately one hour later, Francisco Mendac, residing on a hill near the scene, left his house deliberately.
Mendac proceeded along the road adjacent to the victim’s house, positioning himself strategically at a distance of about 20 brazas from the site of the earlier quarrel.

Upon sighting Mendac approaching, Anselmo Badan stepped out of his house and openly asked if Mendac was willing to fight.
Both parties, visibly armed with bolos, demonstrated their readiness to engage in combat.
The mutual display of intent was evident as both waited for the other to initiate the exchange.

In the ensuing confrontation, Mendac attacked Badan, inflicting a serious slash in the abdomen near the navel.
The wound was severe enough for the victim’s intestines to protrude, and it ultimately proved fatal, as Badan died approximately an hour and a half later.
A post-mortem examination by a physician confirmed that the cause of death was the fatal abdominal wound inflicted by the bolo.

Whether the facts as established constitute the crime of homicide as defined under Article 404 of the Penal Code.
Whether any of the qualifying circumstances under Article 403, which would elevate the offense to murder, were present.

Whether unlawful aggression, as required by No. 4 of Article 8 of the Penal Code, had occurred before the victim’s fatal wound was inflicted, thereby justifying a claim of self-defense.
Consideration of whether the confrontation could be classified as a duel, given the mutual willingness of both disputants to engage in combat.

Whether Mendac’s deliberate departure from his home, and his subsequent approach to the victim’s house, indicates a premeditated intent to re-engage in the quarrel.
Whether the appointment of Mendac to the scene and his readiness to fight, despite the earlier intervention, undermines any claim of accidental or unprovoked aggression.

Whether the trial court did not err in ruling against the defendant’s motion to dismiss filed during the trial.
Whether the lower court correctly assessed that the defendant remained in the vicinity not for innocuous purposes such as proceeding to work, but with the intent to reignite the quarrel and effect a fatal outcome.