G.R. No. L-26183. June 19, 1975.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL SARMIENTO Y NAVE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the afternoon of March 12, 1965, Deputy Clerk of the House Electoral Tribunal, Atty. Manuel G. Verzosa, was shot and killed inside the Supreme Court compound in Manila. As he approached his parked car, a lone gunman fired multiple shots at close range with a .45 caliber pistol, hitting him in the face and neck, causing fatal injuries. Eyewitnesses from a nearby school drill, including Julio Arambulo and Liza Rowena Go, saw the shooting and the assailant’s subsequent flight. Arambulo positively identified appellant Angel Sarmiento as the gunman. Go testified that she saw a man, whom she identified as Sarmiento, running from the scene, dropping his hat near her. Another witness, Julio Ancheta, saw a man tucking a .45 caliber gun into his waistline while fleeing.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Sarmiento was elsewhere at the time. A defense witness, Jose Torres, also testified that a certain Dimero had confessed to him that he, not Sarmiento, was the killer. The trial court convicted Sarmiento of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Angel Sarmiento was the perpetrator of the murder of Manuel G. Verzosa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Arambulo and Go, who had a clear view of the assailant during and immediately after the shooting, prevails over the appellant’s weak alibi. The Court found their testimonies credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish Sarmiento’s identity as the gunman. The defense’s alibi could not overcome this direct evidence, as it was not physically impossible for Sarmiento to have been at the crime scene.
Regarding the alleged confession by Dimero, the Court ruled the testimony of witness Torres inadmissible as hearsay. Torres testified to an out-of-court statement by Dimero, who was not presented in court for cross-examination. The Court found it highly improbable that a perpetrator would casually confess a serious crime to a mere acquaintance. This hearsay evidence carries no probative value and cannot exculpate the appellant. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld, but the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.