G.R. No. 82362; April 26, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO CLORES y CORAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution evidence established that on December 24, 1986, at around 2:00 AM, eyewitness Celso Escobar saw appellant Norberto Clores and another individual named Jedy suddenly attack Rodolfo Reyes from behind as the victim was preparing to go home from a dance. The unprovoked assault involved both assailants taking turns stabbing the victim with bladed weapons until he fell. The victim was immediately rushed to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Escobar reported the incident to the police and later assisted them in locating Clores’s house, where the appellant was found sleeping and was subsequently arrested.
For the defense, Clores interposed alibi and denial. He claimed that on the evening of December 23, he was accosted by a drunk Celso Escobar, who demanded money. Clores alleged he gave Escobar P35.00 to avoid trouble, later witnessed a fistfight involving Escobar, and then went home to sleep. He asserted he was only awakened and arrested by police officers hours later, implicating that Escobar falsely accused him due to his refusal to give more money.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the lone eyewitness testimony; (2) the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (3) whether the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of prosecution witness Celso Escobar. It reiterated settled doctrine that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient for a conviction, and there is no general legal requirement for corroboration. The trial court, which had the direct opportunity to observe the witness’s demeanor, found Escobar’s account to be logical, straightforward, and consistent, and these factual findings are accorded great respect on appeal.
Regarding treachery, the Court found it sufficiently established. The attack was sudden, from behind, and executed in a manner that rendered the unarmed victim defenseless. The Court clarified that even if one wound was frontal, treachery is not negated when the assault is sudden and affords the victim no opportunity to resist. The essence of treachery—the deliberate adoption of means to ensure the execution without risk to the assailant—was present.
Finally, the Court ruled that the positive identification by the credible eyewitness rendered the defense of alibi and denial weak and unavailing. Motive becomes inconsequential when the identity of the perpetrator is established beyond doubt, as in this case. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s judgment, affirming the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the award of civil indemnity.