PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL GURO Y COMBO ALIAS “JASON”
G.R. No. 230619, April 10, 2019
CAGUIOA, J.:
Case 1
FACT: On February 12, 2007, Joemarie Sangcap was informed that the group he
previously encountered was waiting for him. He then texted his nephew, Jefferson
Sangcap, to fetch him. At around 8:30 pm, his brother Jesus Sangcap and
Jefferson arrived. They approached the group of men, Yayi, Niki, Guro and Jerry,
after a little conversation with Yayi, the latter pushed Jefferson. Guro, armed with
knife, jumped and stabbed Jesus Sangcap, twice in the back.
In defense, Angel Guro denied any involvement in the stabbing. Testified that he
saw one of the companions of Joemarie fall down and according to his
companions, a certain Peping stabbed that person.
RTC and CA found Guro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder as defined
and penalized in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code qualified by treachery.
Issue: Whether or not Guro is guilty of murder.
Ruling: The appeal is hereby partially granted. With the removal of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, the crime is Homicide and not Murder. The court
declares accused-appellant Angel Guro guilty of HOMICIDE. Under Article 249
of the RPC, any person found guilty of Homicide shall be meted the penalty of
reclusion temporal, a penalty which contains three (3) periods. The stabbing,
based on the evidence, appears to be the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of
the moment arising from the commotion between the two groups, rather than from
a deliberated act of the will. It is not possible to appreciate treachery against Guro.
Case 2
Republic of the Philippines v. Ludyson C. Catubag
G.R. No. 210580, April 18, 2018
REYES, JR., J.:
Fact: Private respondent, Ludyson Catubag, is married to Shanaviv Alvarez-Catubag. While
working abroad, he was informed that Shanaviv left their house and never returned. Private
respondent flew back home and looked for his wife, with no avail.
Private respondent filed with the RTC a petition to have his wife declared presumptively dead.
Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General(OSG) elevated the judgment of the RTC to
the CA vis a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
RTC granted the petition of private respondent. The CA dismissed the instant petition for
certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not the requisites under Art. 41 of the Family Code were complied.
Ruling: Private respondent failed to fulfill the requisite of establishing a well-founded belief that
the absentee spouse is dead. The petition of respondent, Ludyson C. Catubag to have his wife,
declared presumptively dead is DENIED. The court is of the view that private respondent’s
efforts in searching for his missing wife, are merely passive. No explanation or justification was
given for these glaring omissions. A lenient approach in applying the standards of diligence
required in establishing a “well-founded belief” would defeat the State’s policy in protecting
and strengthening the institution of marriage.