G.R. No. 148490 - 7K Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

On February 11, 1994, around 9:00 in the evening at Barangay Paraiso, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, a group of men—including Jiminardo Jimmy Lumague, Edwin Lumague, Tino Magayac, and Manuel Magayac—were preparing for night fishing.
An altercation occurred when Tino Magayac, the father of the accused, pushed Jimmy while he was seated on a kamarote; when questioned, Tino retorted provocatively, inciting the possibility of a fight.
Tino proceeded to physically assault Jimmy by hitting him on the back (dinagukan). Cooler heads intervened and prevented a full-blown brawl.

Approximately two hours later, while the group was at sea and engaged in pulling the fishnet, Tino again approached Jimmy and struck him at the collar and stomach.
Manuel Magayac, the accused, joined the fray by advancing toward Jimmy and attempting to box him with his right hand.
The situation was defused temporarily when the boat captain intervened under threat, warning to drop them into the sea if the fighting continued.
Shortly after, during another encounter on the morning of February 12, 1994, Jimmy and Manuel engaged in a one-on-one fight in which eyewitness accounts suggested that Jimmy outperformed the accused.

On February 12, 1994, around 6:00 in the evening, while Jimmy was conversing with Nicanor Jack Balana at a house near the beach, Eliza Lumague, Jimmy’s mother, observed Manuel Magayac—armed with a long rifle—passing by.
Eliza, acting on her husband’s advice, followed the accused to warn Jimmy of possible danger.
Despite her warning, and after an exchange wherein Manuel attempted to allay Jimmy's fears with assurances not to run, events quickly escalated.
As Jimmy attempted to leave, he was suddenly shot:

First, he was hit by a bullet in his right stomach, causing him to fall and collapse on his knees.
Manuel then fired multiple shots at Jimmy’s back, causing his instantaneous death after a series of nine shots.

Dr. Rosalinda Baldos conducted an autopsy on Jimmy at 9:00 that same evening, noting:

Multiple gunshot wounds including: four wounds with exit lacerations on the chest; two wounds on the right posterior chest; wounds on the left hip with an exit at the right buttocks; and two wounds on the arm with a complete fracture of the humerus.
The cause of death was determined as cardiorespiratory failure due to shock from severe external and internal hemorrhaging.

An Information dated March 4, 1994 charged Manuel Magayac with murder, specifically for feloniously shooting Jimmy with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, and the aggravating circumstance of abusing his public position as a member of the CAFGU.
Manuel Magayac asserted a claim of self-defense, contending that he had no choice but to fire when Jimmy, allegedly brandishing a balisong, rushed toward him while Manuel’s back was against a wall.
The accused’s version was supported solely by his own testimony after voluntarily surrendering at the 262nd PC Mobile Force.
The trial court, however, rejected his self-defense plea, basing its conclusion on inconsistent evidence and the failure to establish that Jimmy exhibited unlawful aggression.

Whether the accused’s admission of having shot Jimmy, followed by his claim of self-defense, can be reconciled with the required burden of proof to clearly and convincingly establish the elements of self-defense.
Whether the evidence presented supports the necessary elements of self-defense: unlawful aggression by the victim, the necessity and proportionality of the means employed, and the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

Whether the charge of treachery or evident premeditation was justified based on the sequence of events and the accused’s behavior prior to the killing.
Whether the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty (manifested in the manner of the shooting) and the abuse of public position (use of a government-issued M-14 rifle as a CAFGU member) were entitled to elevate the gravity of the crime.

Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation and application of evidence, specifically regarding the timing and the alleged opportunity afforded to the victim to escape harm.
The extent to which the accused’s voluntary surrender served as a mitigating circumstance in light of the charged aggravating factors.