G.R. No. L-63728 September 15, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILLIAM CANADA and NOLI DONDOY, accused; NOLI DONDOY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Noli Dondoy and William Canada, were charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Manuel Pasaol on June 8, 1979, in Davao City. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the eyewitness account of Henry Cabrera, a companion of the victim. Cabrera testified that while he and Pasaol were on the street to buy food, they were called by William Canada. As Pasaol approached, Canada placed an arm on his shoulder while appellant Noli Dondoy pinned Pasaol’s arms, enabling Canada to stab him in the stomach. The defense challenged Cabrera’s credibility, arguing his testimony was uncorroborated and improbable. The defense also presented the testimony of a Barangay Captain who claimed to have seen Cabrera reading comics at a store on the same street around the time of the incident, implying Cabrera was not at the crime scene. The trial court convicted both accused. Canada, a minor, received a suspended sentence. Dondoy was sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and appealed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Noli Dondoy based primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, Henry Cabrera, despite challenges to its credibility and an alibi presented by the defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on established principles of evidence. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to support a conviction; there is no general rule requiring corroboration except in specific crimes like treason. The Court found Cabrera’s testimony clear and positive, identifying Dondoy’s specific act of pinning the victim’s arms, which facilitated the stabbing. No improper motive was shown to discredit his account. Against this positive identification, the defense of alibi must fail. The Barangay Captain’s testimony did not make it physically impossible for Cabrera to be at the crime scene, as both locations were on the same street. The defense’s argument that the well-lit location should have yielded more witnesses was also rejected, as the defense itself failed to produce any such witnesses. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. However, the Court modified the civil liability, increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the victim from P12,000 to P30,000. Thus, the appealed judgment was affirmed with this modification.