PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NORBERTO CLORES Y CORAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Clores

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Norberto Clores y Coral, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The case matters for the Bar candidate because it gathers in one decision the settled rules on the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness, the weight of alibi against positive identification, the nature of treachery, and the role of motive — all recurring examination ground in criminal law and remedial law.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131, sitting as a Special Criminal Court, tried the accused and, in a decision promulgated on 7 March 1988, found him guilty of murder for the killing of Rodolfo Reyes y de Paz. The trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of 30,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused disagreed and brought the case directly to the Supreme Court on appeal, assigning three errors: that the trial court gave undue weight to the lone eyewitness, that it erred in finding treachery, and that it erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

In the early morning of 24 December 1986, at about two o'clock, Celso Escobar was about to go home from a dancing party at Zapote Street, Barangay 178, Camarin, Caloocan City. From a distance of about four arms lengths, he saw the accused and a certain Jedy suddenly attack from behind and stab Rodolfo Reyes, who was standing beside the road preparing to go home and who had given no provocation. The two took turns stabbing the victim — the accused with a bladed weapon about six to eight inches long, Jedy with a longer weapon about twelve to fourteen inches long — until the victim fell to the ground. The victim was rushed to the Quezon City General Hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.

Escobar informed the victim's brother-in-law, then accompanied the widow to a police sub-station to report the incident. He assisted the policemen in locating the accused's house, where the accused was found sleeping. Having been identified by Escobar as one of the assailants, the accused was taken to the Caloocan City Police Station, where he denied participation.

For his part, the accused claimed that on the evening of 23 December 1986, after coming from work, he was accosted by a man who introduced himself as Celso Escobar and who demanded money to buy two cases of beer. Fearing trouble, he gave him all the money in his pocket, amounting to 35 pesos. He then saw Escobar in a fistfight with another man, went home, prepared supper, and went to bed. He was awakened by police officers at around four o'clock in the morning of 24 December 1986 and taken to the police station. He denied the charge and speculated that Escobar implicated him because he failed to give the amount demanded.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of a single eyewitness, uncorroborated, is sufficient to support a conviction for murder.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the lone eyewitness and in rejecting the accused's alibi and denials.
• Whether or not the qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

Applicable Provisions

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes murder:

Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

Treachery is the qualifying circumstance the trial court and the Supreme Court found, raising the killing from homicide to murder.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery as a circumstance that qualifies a killing:

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances: 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

The Court applied this definition when it held that a sudden attack on an unarmed and helpless victim who was given no chance to defend himself constitutes treachery.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the fact that the eyewitness's testimony is uncorroborated will not detract from its credibility. There is no law requiring that the testimony of a single witness be corroborated, except where expressly mandated, as in treason, which requires the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder.

On the second issue, the Court declined to disturb the trial court's findings on credibility. The trial court had the opportunity to examine the witness's demeanor on the stand, and its findings are entitled to great respect absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied a fact of weight and substance. Escobar testified in a logical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner, remained consistent on cross-examination, and his testimony faithfully restated the sworn declaration he gave to the police a few hours after the incident. He was a Barangay Tanod concerned with peace and order, was about four arms lengths away, had known the accused for about a month, and could not have been mistaken in his identification. His account that the accused stabbed the victim above the buttocks coincided with the medical certificate. Against this positive identification, the accused's alibi — that he was sleeping at home — could not prevail. Alibi is generally a weak defense, easy to concoct, and is accepted only when proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence; for it to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene. The distance between his residence and the scene was barely one-half kilometer. The Court also noted the accused's contradictions about his working hours and found it highly improbable that a stranger would demand money from him. Escobar's failure to call for help or pursue the armed assailants did not discredit him, since the natural instinct of self-preservation would prevail. The absence of the examining physician did not raise doubt, because each assailant had stabbed the victim once, and in the face of positive identification the weapon and the location of the wounds assume secondary importance.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was established. The trunk is in fact at the back of an individual, and Escobar categorically testified that he saw the accused stab the victim above the buttocks, proving the stabbing was from behind. Even assuming a frontal attack, treachery would still lie if the attack was suddenly made on an unarmed and helpless victim who was given no chance whatsoever to defend himself from the fatal blows.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that motive need not be established where the accused has been positively identified and there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. In case of contradictory declarations, greater weight is generally given to the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses than to the denials of the accused. No cogent reason existed to reverse the trial court's finding of guilt to a legal and moral certainty.

Doctrine

• The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction even for murder; corroboration is required only where the law expressly mandates it, as in treason.
• Findings of the trial court on the credibility of a witness are entitled to great respect, and the appellate court will not disturb them absent a showing of overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts of weight and substance.
• Alibi is a weak defense, easy to concoct, and is accepted only when proved by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence; it must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime.
• Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by a credible prosecution witness.
• Treachery qualifies a killing when the attack is sudden and made on an unarmed and helpless victim who is given no chance to defend himself, whether the attack comes from behind or from the front.
• Motive need not be established where the accused has been positively identified and there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for murder, with costs against the accused Norberto Clores y Coral.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the testimony of one credible and positive eyewitness is sufficient to convict even for murder, and alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of a lone eyewitness, the requisites of alibi, and the concept of treachery in a sudden attack on an unarmed and helpless victim.