G.R. No. 120881 - People vs. Germina y Maldo

On November 9, 1994, in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, the accused, Elpidio Germina y Maldo, was charged and eventually convicted for the killing of Reymundo Angeles.
The information in the case alleged that the accused committed murder with treachery, evident premeditation, and deliberate intent to kill.

Eyewitness accounts from Marcelino Almazan, Gaudencio Angeles, and Ramil Regencia established that around 7:30 in the evening, the accused arrived at the Angeles residence armed with a revolver.
At the residence, a heated quarrel ensued between the victim’s relatives and the accused, stemming from a previous altercation involving the accused’s brother and the victim.
Shortly thereafter, Raymund (Reymundo Angeles) appeared, prompting the accused to draw his firearm.
As Raymund attempted to flee, he stumbled on a street hump, fell face down, and was subsequently shot by the accused; the single bullet struck him at the back of the neck.
The autopsy report indicated a gunshot wound at the back right side of his buttock with a downward trajectory, consistent with the victim being in a face-down, defenseless position.

The accused admitted to shooting Raymund but claimed the act was done in self-defense.
According to his version, bolstered by his wife Nida Germina’s testimony, he visited the Angeles residence to confirm news that Raymund had mauled and stabbed his mentally retarded brother, Rafael.
During the ensuing interaction, Raymund allegedly threatened the accused with a double-bladed weapon and cursed him, prompting the accused, when cornered against a wall, to fire in self-defense.

The trial court found the prosecution’s narrative more credible than the defendant’s self-defense claim, notably because forensic evidence and testimony indicated that Raymund was shot in the back while already fleeing.
The court observed that the shooting, done while the victim was in a vulnerable and helpless position, would ordinarily qualify as murder by treachery.
However, mitigating circumstances were noted: the accused’s voluntary surrender immediately after the incident and the passion arising from witnessing the prior maltreatment of his brother.
Based on these factors, the trial court imposed a sentence of Reclusion Perpetua rather than the death penalty and ordered the payment of indemnity and funeral expenses to the victim’s heirs.

Whether the manner in which the accused shot Raymund—specifically from behind while the victim was fleeing—constituted treachery, thereby qualifying the crime as murder.
Whether the evidence sufficiently supported the prosecution’s claim that treachery was present, despite the defendant’s assertion of self-defense.

Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion should lead to a conviction for homicide rather than murder.
Whether the reduction of the penalty, in light of these mitigating factors, was proper under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and relevant jurisprudence.

How the present case compares with established cases such as People vs. Floresa and People vs. Nemeria regarding fatal assaults from behind and the required elements for treachery.
Whether the presence of others at the scene and the victim’s attempts to flee negate the element of treachery.