People v. Lugto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 17, 1986, six men barged into the house of Zosimo Perez y Ilaw and stabbed him multiple times with bladed weapons. The assailants then calmly left the premises. The incident was witnessed by Zosimo's mother, Diosdada Perez, and his brother, Manuel Perez, Jr., who positively identified Edgar Lugtu y Velasco and Nicanor Niervo as two of the assailants. Zosimo was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital, with the post-mortem examination indicating severe hemorrhage secondary to stab wounds as the cause of death. Upon apprehension, Lugto and Niervo verbally admitted their participation but refused to give sworn statements. An information for murder was filed against them and several John Does. During the proceedings, Nicanor Niervo died in a jail rumble, and the case against him was dismissed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City found Edgar Lugto y Velasco guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the victim P6,000.00, and to pay costs. The trial court noted that the crime was qualified by treachery. The Petition: Defendant-appellant Edgar Lugto y Velasco appealed the decision, alleging that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in giving credence to the testimonies of Diosdada Perez and Manuel Perez, and in failing to appreciate his minority as a mitigating circumstance.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused Edgar Lugto y Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Diosdada Perez and Manuel Perez. Whether the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the minority of the accused as a mitigating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification as to the indemnity amount. The judgment finding the appellant guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua was upheld. The indemnity to the heirs of the victim was increased to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the appeal devoid of merit. The appellant did not question the factual finding of the trial court that the crime committed was murder qualified by treachery. The defense of alibi, which claimed the appellant was at home and did not know the victim or his relatives, was uncorroborated. This defense could not prevail over the positive identification made by the victim's mother and brother. The Court noted that the appellant lived in the same street and barangay as the victim, making it physically possible for him to have committed the crime and returned home. The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies were considered badges of truthfulness due to the excitement attendant to the incident. Furthermore, no ill-will or motive was shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. On the credibility of witnesses: The Court found the appellant's claim that the testimonies of Diosdada Perez and Manuel Perez suffered from material inconsistencies to be untenable. While Diosdada testified that only she and a nephew were present, this did not preclude Manuel, the victim's brother, from also witnessing the incident, especially since he was also attacked. The Court reasoned that due to the excitement of the event, it is not unusual for witnesses to overlook details or remember events differently. These alleged inconsistencies were deemed to bolster the witnesses' truthfulness and candor rather than detract from it. The absence of any shown motive for the prosecution witnesses to perjure themselves further strengthened their credibility. On the mitigating circumstance of minority: The Court ruled that the plea for the mitigating circumstance of minority was without merit. The appellant failed to present any evidence to support his claim of being a minor at the time of the commission of the offense, other than his bare statement. The burden of proving minority rests on the accused, and in this case, that burden was not discharged. Therefore, the trial court did not err in failing to appreciate this circumstance.
Main Doctrine
The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. The burden of proof for minority as a mitigating circumstance rests on the accused.