, G.R. No. 167464 January 21, 2010
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 23 November 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26562 as well as the Resolution dated 17 March 2005 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the 8 February 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, convicting Ronnie Sumbillo of the crime of attempted murder as principal and Francisco Sericon, Joselito Sericon and Felix Gayuso, Jr. as accomplices.
We find the appeal without merit. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the trial court’s ruling that attempted murder was clearly established by the prosecution witnesses. The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. These significant factors are needed in unearthing the truth, especially in conflicting testimonies. The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, which is not true in the present case.
The clear and convincing testimonies of Pangan and the other prosecution witnesses positively point to Sumbillo as the one who held a gun and tried to shot Pangan. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies pertain to minor details which do not affect the witnesses’ credibility.
The trial court was correct in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery to have attended the commission of the crime. The evidence shows that when Sumbillo aimed the gun, the Sericons and Gayuso, Jr. held different parts of Pangan’s body, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. Then, when Pangan was able to free himself, he ran away with his back turned against Sumbillo who kept on firing his gun until he was hit at the back of his head.
Treachery has been defined as “the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise.”
In People v. Pascual, the Court held:
Attempted Murder is punishable with the penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is prision mayor. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision correccional, and the maximum of the penalty to be imposed should be within the range of prision mayor in its medium period.
In People v. Continente, the Court stated:
On the other hand, being an accomplice to the crimes of murder and attempted murder, the penalty to be imposed on appellant Donato Continente shall be the medium periods of reclusion temporal andprision correccional, respectively. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in both cases, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed on appellant Continente as an accomplice to the crime of murder is the medium period of reclusion temporal and the minimum shall be prision mayor, while the maximum of the penalty to be imposed on the said appellant as an accomplice to the crime of attempted murder is the medium period of prision correccional and the minimum shall be arresto mayor.
No comments:
Post a Comment