G.R. No. L-10735; August 5, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO MENDAC, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the afternoon of March 8, 1915, in Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, Francisco Mendac and Anselmo Badan quarreled and were about to fight while gambling in the house of Nicolasa Piñol. They were separated by the barrio lieutenant and others. Both returned to their respective houses. About an hour later, Mendac left his house and passed along the road near Badan’s house. Upon seeing Mendac, Badan asked if he was willing to fight. Mendac replied affirmatively. Badan then descended from his house armed with a bolo. Mendac, also armed with a bolo, immediately attacked and inflicted a fatal slash on Badan’s abdomen, causing his death about an hour and a half later. Mendac was convicted of homicide by the trial court and sentenced to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, an indemnity of P1,000 to the victim’s heirs, and costs.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant of homicide and in not appreciating any extenuating or aggravating circumstances, or the exempting circumstance of self-defense.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The facts constitute the crime of homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The Court held that:
1. No qualifying circumstance for murder was present. The killing did not involve any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 403 of the Penal Code.
2. Self-defense is not applicable. Both parties were mutually willing to fight, as evidenced by Mendac’s approach to Badan’s house and Badan’s immediate challenge. When both parties are armed and confront each other by mutual consent, unlawful aggression on the part of either cannot be admitted, negating the essential element for self-defense under Article 8(4) of the Penal Code.
3. No extenuating or aggravating circumstances attended the crime. The Court rejected the defense’s claim of provocation (Article 9, No. 3) or passion and obfuscation (Article 9, No. 4). The defendant’s act of inflicting a fatal abdominal wound demonstrated a determined intent to cause grave injury. Furthermore, the incident would not have occurred had the defendant not approached the victim’s house after their earlier altercation.
4. The crime is not a duel. Although both exhibited a willingness to fight, the specific conditions required by law to constitute the crime of dueling were not present.

Since no modifying circumstances were present, the penalty was correctly imposed in its medium degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of fifteen years of reclusion temporal, the indemnity, and the costs, with the corresponding accessory penalties under Article 59 of the Penal Code.