Case Digest (G.R. No. 167464)
Facts:
Ronnie Sumbillo, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167464, January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ronnie Sumbillo, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon and Felix Gayuso, Jr. were charged in an Amended Information (9 September 1999) with the frustrated murder of Edilberto Pangan, Jr. They pleaded not guilty. At trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, the prosecution presented Pangan, his wife Evelyn, an employee Dante Morales, and Dr. Policarpio Santos, Jr. as witnesses; the defense presented testimony from the accused and an affidavit of desistance signed by Pangan.
Pangan testified that on 15 November 1995, while retrieving his jeep, accused Sumbillo aimed a gun at him and repeatedly pulled the trigger, which initially misfired; Pangan was restrained by Francisco, Joselito and Felix while attempting to flee, and was later struck by a gunshot at the back of his head. Evelyn and Morales corroborated material portions of Pangan’s account; Dr. Santos testified to a hematoma and contusion treated at the hospital. Petitioners denied involvement: Sumbillo claimed he was on duty as barangay tanod that night; others gave alibi-style testimony and asserted mistaken identity or familial implication.
On 8 February 2002, the RTC found Sumbillo guilty of Attempted Murder as principal and the three Sericons/Gayuso guilty as accomplices, imposing indeterminate terms and ordering P12,000 indemnity for medical expenses. The RTC credited the prosecution witnesses, deemed the affidavit of desistance an afterthought, and found the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on 23 November 2004 affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified Sumbillo’s penalty upward and l...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the conviction based on the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies (i.e., was the evidence sufficient and were the witnesses credible)?
- Was the qualifying circumstance of treachery properly appreciated?
- Were the penalties and civil damages (including exemplary damages) correctly imposed and/or c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)