Case Digest (G.R. No. 82362)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Norberto Clores y Coral, G.R. No. 82362, April 26, 1990, the Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 131, acting as a Special Criminal Court, rendered the decision being reviewed; the RTC decision was penned by Judge Antonio J. Fineza and promulgated on March 7, 1988.On December 24, 1986, at about 2:00 a.m., a dancing party was held on Zapote Street, Barangay 178, Camarin, Caloocan City. Rodolfo Reyes y de Paz (the victim) was stabbed and later declared dead on arrival at Quezon City General Hospital. The lone eyewitness, Celso Escobar, testified that from a distance of about four arm-lengths he saw appellant Norberto Clores y Coral and another man called “Jedy” suddenly attack the victim from behind and stab him. Escobar described Clores as using a bladed weapon about six to eight inches long and Jedy a longer weapon of about twelve to fourteen inches; both assailants allegedly stabbed the victim until he fell. The weapons were not recovered. Escobar and the victim’s widow gave sworn statements to police; Escobar accompanied police to Clores’s house where Clores was found sleeping and was brought to the Caloocan City Police Station and later identified by Escobar as one of the assailants.
At trial Clores denied participation, claiming an alibi that he was at home asleep after coming from work; he also related an earlier encounter the prior evening with Escobar who allegedly demanded money. The RTC found Escobar’s testimony credible, held that Clores had been positively identified at the scene and immediately thereafter, and convicted Clores of Murder with the qualifying circumstance of treachery, sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua, indemn...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Celso Escobar?
- Did the trial court err in finding the qualifying circumstance of treachery?
- Did the trial court err in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonab...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)