G.R. No. 167464 - Sumbillo vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167464)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s narrative centered on an attack on Pangan in the evening of 15 November 1995. Pangan testified that at about 8:00 p.m. he arrived from work, noticed bruises on his wife, and decided to bring her to the hospital. As he prepared to use his jeep, Sumbillo suddenly appeared, aimed a gun at him, and pulled the trigger several times, but the gun did not initially fire. Pangan hid behind the jeep and covered himself with the lawanit. He heard Sumbillo repeatedly pulling the trigger until he heard a gunshot. Pangan ran toward his house, but Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. stopped him and held him. Pangan then managed to free himself. As he ran, he heard another gunshot, fell on the pavement, and became unconscious.

Pangan reported that his cousin Leopoldo Macayag brought him to Mary Johnston Hospital, where he received first aid, and he was later transferred to Metropolitan Hospital, where he was confined for three days. Pangan’s testimony was corroborated in material respects by Evelyn Prieto Pangan, his wife, and Dante Morales. Evelyn testified that around 7:30 p.m., while walking toward Juan Luna Street, she was hit from behind, fell to the ground, and saw Joselito Sericon holding a wooden stick. She stated that Emelinda Sericon and Nida Almario kept pulling her hair and pushing her down. After neighbors rescued her, she later saw Sumbillo pointing a gun at her husband.

The attending physician, Dr. Policarpio Santos, Jr., testified that Pangan had a hematoma and contusion at the back of his head treated with an ice pack, and that Pangan was otherwise in normal condition, for which analgesics were given.

Defense Evidence

Sumbillo presented an alibi. He claimed that on 15 November 1995 he was on duty as Barangay Tanod of Panday Pira Extension from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. of the following day. He asserted that he was at the Barangay Hall during that time and denied seeing Pangan that evening. He likewise denied possessing any firearm.

Felix Gayuso, Jr. testified for the defense that he was serving customers at their carinderia in Tondo until midnight on 15 November 1995. He claimed he learned of the altercation only after being informed that Emelinda Sericon was involved. He stated that on 16 November 1995 his parents informed him that policemen came to their house, but no warrant existed, so his father was not arrested. He added that a case was filed against his father but was dismissed because Pangan was unable to identify his father in court. Felix denied meeting Pangan on 15 November 1995 and explained that he was likely charged due to his relation to Sumbillo.

Joselito Sericon testified that on 15 November 1995 he was watching the PBA game at a friend’s house when someone told him that Evelyn Pangan had mauled his mother, Emelinda Sericon. He said he went to the incident place, saw his mother lying on the floor, brought her to Tondo General Hospital, and later went to the Barangay Hall to report the incident. He maintained he did not intend revenge, and claimed he was charged because he was related by blood to the other accused. Francisco Sericon and Emelinda Sericon corroborated Joselito’s testimony.

During trial, the defense also presented an affidavit of desistance signed by Pangan.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court gave weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It rejected the defenses of alibi and denial, holding that they could not prevail over the prosecution’s positive identification. The court concluded that petitioners conspired in the commission of the crime.

However, the trial court considered the accomplice liability differently from principal liability due to the Information’s framing. It noted that there was no allegation of conspiracy in the Information. Hence, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. were treated as accomplices rather than principals.

The trial court reasoned that the Sericons and Gayuso, Jr. were simultaneously holding Pangan while Sumbillo was pulling the trigger. It viewed their acts as aimed at depriving Pangan of the chance to escape or put up a defense, thereby facilitating the attempt on Pangan’s life.

The court also addressed the affidavit of desistance. It found that Pangan’s affidavit was only an afterthought. It relied on Emelinda Sericon’s testimony that Pangan expressed willingness to desist if charges against Evelyn Pangan were withdrawn. The trial court treated the affidavit as a bargain and held it did not show that Pangan’s earlier declarations were clouded by a misapprehension of facts.

On 8 February 2002, the trial court found Sumbillo guilty of attempted murder as principal and the other petitioners guilty as accomplices. It imposed an indeterminate sentence of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor minimum as maximum on Sumbillo. For the accomplices, it imposed an indeterminate term of six months and one day of prision correccional minimum as minimum to four years, two months of prision correccional medium as maximum. The court ordered joint and several liability for P12,000 representing medical expenses.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, petitioners argued that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to allegedly incredulous prosecution testimony that they claimed was conflicting and inconsistent. They contended that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and maintained that the imputation of the crime was fabricated.

Appellate Court Ruling

In its 23 November 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for Sumbillo. It increased the maximum period of Sumbillo’s indeterminate sentence, imposing four years, two months and one day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to eight years and one day to ten years of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum.

The Court of Appeals held that discrepancies among prosecution witnesses concerned immaterial and collateral matters that did not impair credibility. It also sustained the trial court’s rejection of alibi and denial in light of the alleged positive and categorical identification by the prosecution.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Liability

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and affirmed that attempted murder was clearly established by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the trial court was in the best position to assess credibility due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and attitude during examination. It held that such factual findings bind the appellate court absent overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted facts or circumstances, which did not appear in the case.

The Court treated Pangan and the other prosecution witnesses’ accounts as clear and convincing. It ruled that Sumbillo was correctly identified as the person who held the gun and tried to shoot Pangan. It further held that inconsistencies in the prosecution testimonies related to minor details and did not affect credibility.

The Court similarly rejected Sumbillo’s alibi. It held that the claim of being on duty as Barangay Tanod did not defeat the positive and categorical prosecution testimony. It also reasoned that the testimony did not establish physical impossibility. The Court reiterated that alibi is the weakest defense because it is easy to fabricate and is generally rejected when the accused is positively identified by a credible witness.

Qualification: Treachery

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of treachery. It found that the evidence showed how the attack was carried out: when Sumbillo aimed the gun, the Sericons and Gayuso, Jr. held different parts of Pangan’s body, depriving him of an opportunity to defend himself. It added that when Pangan freed himself and ran away with his back turned, Sumbillo continued firing until Pangan was hit at the back of his head.

The Court cited the doctrinal definition of treachery as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons, which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender from any defense the intended victim might raise.

Penalties and Modification of the Accomplices’ Sentences

The Court discussed the proper penalty for attempted murder. It referred to People v. Pascual, holding that attempted murder is punishable with a penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the imposable penalty was prision mayor, and absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum should fall within prision correccional, and the maximum within prision mayor in its medium period.

The Court held that the penalty imposed on Sumbillo—four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum—was correctly imposed.

For the accomplices, the Court applied the reasoning in People v. Continente, explaining that as accomplices to murder and attempted murder, the penalty to be imposed is governed by the a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167464)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ronnie Sumbillo, Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. were the petitioners who sought appellate review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
People of the Philippines was the respondent.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33 decision dated 8 February 2002 convicting Ronnie Sumbillo as principal and the Sericons and Gayuso, Jr. as accomplices.
The Court of Appeals issued its decision on 23 November 2004 and denied reconsideration on 17 March 2005.
The present appeal challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the penalties imposed.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution charged the accused in an Amended Information dated 9 September 1999 with the frustrated murder of Edilberto Pangan, Jr. (Pangan).
Pangan testified that on 15 November 1995 at about 8:00 in the evening, after arriving from work and noticing bruises on his wife, he went outside to get his jeep parked about 30 meters from their house.
Pangan stated that Ronnie Sumbillo suddenly appeared, aimed a gun at him, and pulled the trigger several times without firing initially.
Pangan testified that after the gun failed to fire, he hid behind the jeep and covered himself with the lawanit while Sumbillo continued pulling the trigger.
Pangan alleged that he ran towards his house, but Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. stopped him by holding him.
Pangan said he was able to free himself and then heard a gunshot, after which he fell unconscious on the pavement.
Pangan testified that his cousin Leopoldo Macayag brought him to Mary Johnston Hospital for first aid, and he was later transferred to Metropolitan Hospital, where he was confined for three days.
Evelyn Pangan, his wife, corroborated that she was attacked around 7:30 p.m. while walking towards Juan Luna Street, and she identified Joselito Sericon holding a wooden stick, while others pulled her hair and pushed her down.
Evelyn Pangan testified that after being rescued, she later saw Sumbillo pointing a gun at her husband when he went to get the jeep.
Dante Morales corroborated Pangan’s account of the incident.
Dr. Policarpio Santos, Jr. testified that Pangan had a hematoma and contusion at the back of the head treated with an ice pack, and otherwise was in normal condition and was given analgesic only.

Defense Theories Presented

Ronnie Sumbillo claimed alibi by stating that on 15 November 1995, he was on duty as a Barangay Tanod from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. of the next day and that he was at the Barangay Hall when his sister Emelinda Sericon filed a complaint against Evelyn Pangan.
Sumbillo denied seeing Pangan that evening and denied possession of any firearm.
Felix Gayuso, Jr. testified that on 15 November 1995 at about 8:00 p.m., he was serving customers at their carinderia in Canal de Reyna St., Tondo, Manila until midnight, and he claimed he learned of the incident only because his aunt was involved in a dispute with Pangan’s wife.
Felix Gayuso, Jr. testified that when he returned from school on 16 November 1995, policemen came to their house, but his father was not arrested due to the lack of a warrant.
Felix Gayuso, Jr. further stated that a case filed against his father was dismissed because Pangan could not identify his father in court.
Felix Gayuso, Jr. denied meeting Pangan on 15 November 1995 and explained that he was probably charged due to his relation to Sumbillo.
Joselito Sericon testified that on 15 November 1995, he was watching the PBA game at a friend’s house until he was informed that Evelyn Pangan mauled his mother, after which he went to the incident and brought his mother to Tondo General Hospital.
Joselito Sericon denied any intention to take revenge and claimed he was charged because of blood relation to the co-accused.
The defense presented an affidavit of desistance signed by Pangan.

Evidence Considered by Trial Court

The trial court gave premium to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including Pangan, Evelyn Pangan, Dante Morales, and Dr. Policarpio Santos, Jr..
The trial court held that the defenses of alibi and denial could not prevail over the prosecution’s positive identification and assertions.
The trial court found that the accused conspired in committing the crime, but it treated Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. as accomplices because the Information allegedly did not allege conspiracy.
The trial court reasoned that the simultaneous act of holding Pangan while Sumbillo pulled the trigger aimed to deprive Pangan of the chance to escape or put up a defense, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.
The trial court treated the affidavit of desistance as an afterthought, considering testimony that Pangan expressed willingness to desist only if charges against Evelyn Pangan would be withdrawn.
The trial court ruled that the affidavit of desistance was only a bargain and did not indicate that Pangan’s declarations were clouded by a misapprehension of facts.

Trial Court Ruling and Penalties

The trial court convicted Sumbillo of Attempted Murder as principal and convicted Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon, and Felix Gayuso, Jr. as accomplices.
The trial court imposed on Sumbillo an indeterminate prison term ranging from four years, two months and one day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to six years and one day of prision mayor minimum as maximum.
The trial court imposed on the accomplices an indeterminate prison term rangin