People v. Sumbillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Ronnie Sumbillo, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. were charged with frustrated murder for the attempted killing of Edilberto Pangan, Jr. Pangan testified that on November 15, 1995, while removing a cover from his jeep, Sumbillo aimed a gun at him and pulled the trigger, but it misfired. Pangan was then stopped by Francisco, Joselito, and Felix as he tried to run to his house. He heard a gunshot, fell, and lost consciousness. Evelyn Pangan, Pangan's wife, corroborated the incident and testified that she was assaulted by Joselito Sericon, Emelinda Sericon, and Nida Almario prior to her husband's incident. Dr. Policarpio Santos, Jr. testified that Pangan sustained a hematoma and contusion on the back of his head. Sumbillo claimed he was on duty as a Barangay Tanod and denied possessing a firearm. Felix Gayuso, Jr. and Joselito Sericon presented alibis, claiming they were busy with work or watching a PBA game, respectively, and were informed of the incident later. Francisco Sericon and Emelinda Sericon corroborated Joselito's testimony. An affidavit of desistance signed by Pangan was presented by the defense. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, convicted Ronnie Sumbillo as principal for attempted murder and Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. as accomplices. The RTC found the affidavit of desistance to be an afterthought and a bargain. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification as to the penalty for Sumbillo. The CA ruled that discrepancies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies were immaterial and that alibi and denial were weak against positive identification. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in giving credence to conflicting and inconsistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the petitioners for attempted murder as principal and accomplices was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the commission of the crime. Whether the penalties imposed on the principal and accomplices were correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification regarding the penalties for the accomplices. Ronnie Sumbillo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted murder as principal, and Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. were found guilty as accomplices. The penalties for the accomplices were modified to six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The award of ₱12,000 for medical expenses and ₱25,000 for exemplary damages was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the petitioners for attempted murder as principal and accomplices: The Court found the appeal without merit, upholding the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Pangan, positively identified Sumbillo as the perpetrator who attempted to shoot Pangan. The Court reiterated that the assessment of witness credibility is best left to the trial court, whose findings are binding on appellate courts unless there are overlooked facts or circumstances. The alibi and denial of the petitioners were deemed weak defenses against the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The Court emphasized that alibi is the weakest defense, especially when the accused is positively identified. The inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were considered minor and did not affect their credibility. On the qualifying circumstance of treachery: The trial court correctly appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The evidence showed that Sumbillo aimed the gun at Pangan while the Sericons and Gayuso, Jr. restrained him, depriving him of any opportunity to defend himself or escape. Even when Pangan managed to free himself and run, Sumbillo continued firing, hitting Pangan at the back of his head. Treachery is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the victim might raise. The actions of the petitioners clearly demonstrated this, as they ensured the commission of the crime without risk to themselves. On the penalties imposed on the principal and accomplices: The Court affirmed the penalty imposed on Sumbillo for attempted murder, which was an indeterminate prison term of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. However, the Court modified the penalties for the accomplices, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. Citing jurisprudence, the Court held that the penalty for an accomplice to attempted murder should be the medium period of prision correccional, with the minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law being arresto mayor. Thus, the accomplices were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional, as maximum. The joint and several liability for medical expenses was maintained, and exemplary damages were awarded due to the presence of treachery.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for attempted murder, holding that treachery was present and that alibi and denial are weak defenses against positive identification. The penalties for accomplices were modified.