Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26183)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Angel Sarmiento y Nave, G.R. No. L-26183, June 19, 1975, Supreme Court Second Division, Concepcion, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The prosecution charged Angel Sarmiento y Nave with murder in Criminal Case No. 78519 before the Court of First Instance of Manila for the cold‑blooded killing of Deputy Clerk Manuel G. Verzosa on March 12, 1965, inside the Supreme Court Compound. The CFI convicted appellant, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered indemnity to the heirs in the amount of P6,000, and imposed costs.The shooting occurred shortly before 4:30 p.m. as Verzosa approached his parked car. A lone gunman fired several .45 caliber shots; autopsy showed three penetrating gunshot wounds that macerated the brain and fractured the skull and cervical vertebrae, causing death. Four empty .45 shells and a .45 slug were recovered at the scene. Several bystanders — students and a scout supervisor drilling nearby (Julio Arambulo, Liza Rowena Go, Julio Ancheta) and an advertising executive (Arturo Leano) — identified appellant as the man who fired at Verzosa and who ran from the compound, his hat falling as he fled and later boarding a jeep registered in appellant’s name.
At trial the defense offered an alibi that appellant was at his home in Pasay City at the time of the killing and attempted to attribute the crime to another man, Ricardo Dimero, chiefly through the testimony of Hermogenes Torres that Dimero had allegedly admitted to Torres he committed the crime. The trial court rejected the alibi and the proffered identification of Dimero as unreliable and, on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s identity as the assailant proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did appellant’s alibi, based on his asserted presence in Pasay City, create reasonable doubt?
- Could the testimony imputing the crime to Ricardo Dimero (via Torres) exonerate appellant?
- Should the indemnity awarded t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)