G.R. No. 89214 . October 18, 1990.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGAR LUGTO y VELASCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On April 17, 1986, at around 4:00 PM, Zosimo Perez was inside his house in Quezon City when six men forcibly entered and stabbed him multiple times, resulting in his death. The incident was witnessed by his mother, Diosdada Perez, and his brother, Manuel Perez, Jr., who positively identified Edgar Lugto and Nicanor Niervo as two of the assailants. The victim was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, with the cause of death established as severe hemorrhage from stab wounds. Upon apprehension, Lugto and Niervo verbally admitted involvement but refused to provide sworn statements.
An information for murder was filed against them. During trial, the case against Niervo was dismissed due to his death in a jail incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted Edgar Lugto of murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the victim’s heirs. Lugto appealed, contesting the positive identification, witness credibility, and the trial court’s failure to appreciate his alleged minority as a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved Lugto’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are credible; and (3) whether Lugto’s alleged minority should be considered a mitigating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification on the civil indemnity. The Court found the appeal devoid of merit. On the first issue, the defense of alibi interposed by Lugto cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification made by two eyewitnesses, Diosdada and Manuel Perez. The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and becomes even less credible when the accused is not shown to have been so far away as to preclude physical presence at the crime scene. Lugto resided in the same street and barangay, making it physically possible for him to have committed the crime.
Regarding witness credibility, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies—such as who exactly was present during the incident—were deemed minor and did not undermine the core assertion of Lugto’s participation. The Court ruled that such minor variances are natural and may even indicate truthfulness, as they reflect the normal discrepancies in human recollection during a traumatic event. No ill motive was shown for the witnesses to falsely accuse Lugto.
Finally, the claim of minority was correctly rejected by the trial court. Lugto bore the burden of proving his age at the time of the offense, which he failed to do by presenting any corroborating evidence beyond his own bare assertion. Consequently, no mitigating circumstance could be appreciated. The Court, however, modified the civil liability by increasing the indemnity to the heirs of the victim to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.