G.R. No. 230619 April 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ANGEL GURO Y COMBO ALIAS “JASON”, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Angel Guro was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Jesus Sangcap, Jr. The prosecution’s version, primarily through eyewitnesses Jefferson Sangcap (the victim’s son) and Joemarie Sangcap (the victim’s brother), established that on February 12, 2007, they went to fetch Joemarie from school due to a threat from a group. Upon encountering the group at a street corner in Marikina, an altercation ensued. Jefferson was pushed, and the group attacked Jesus, who was kneeling on the ground after being hit by a thrown chair. While Jesus was in this defenseless position, Guro arrived and stabbed him twice in the back. The medico-legal officer confirmed the fatal back wounds were caused by a bladed weapon. The defense, solely through Guro’s testimony, claimed he was merely a bystander buying food and that he acted in self-defense when Jesus allegedly attacked him first with a knife during a sudden confrontation.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) attended the killing to convict Guro of Murder, or if the crime committed is Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, finding their testimonies clear, consistent, and credible in establishing that Guro perpetrated the stabbing. However, the Court disagreed with the finding of treachery. For treachery to qualify a killing as Murder, the means of execution must be deliberately adopted by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to himself from any defense the victim might make. The prosecution evidence showed that the attack on Jesus began with a mauling by a group following a heated altercation. The Court ruled that the situation was a “free-for-all” or a tumultuous affray. In such a scenario, where the attack commenced openly and the victim was already assaulted by others, the manner of attack was not shown to have been consciously adopted by Guro to make an unexpected and unguarded assault. The element of deliberate adoption of a treacherous mode of attack was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the killing was attended only by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, which is absorbed in Homicide. Guro was convicted of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, with modified damages awarded to the victim’s heirs.