G.R. No. L-60470 September 9, 1985
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIUS MAHUSAY alias Alot, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Julius Mahusay, together with Jaime Cinco (at large), was charged with Murder for the stabbing death of Armando Baculi on January 25, 1981, in Cebu City. The prosecution evidence established that eyewitnesses Joseph Gamboa and Gary Parba saw Jaime Cinco walking with his arm around the victim’s shoulder in a firm hold. Suddenly, Mahusay appeared from the dark and, without warning, stabbed Baculi on the left side of his body. The witnesses shouted, prompting both assailants to flee. The gravely wounded Baculi was brought to a hospital where, before his death the following day, he gave a statement to Patrolman Davide Villanueva identifying Mahusay as his assailant and expressing his belief that he would die from his wounds.
The defense presented a different version. Mahusay admitted being at the scene but claimed he was merely a bystander with two female companions on their way to a dance. He testified that it was Jaime Cinco alone who stabbed Baculi. The trial court rejected this defense, finding Mahusay’s testimony lacking in credibility, and convicted him of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding Mahusay, and not Jaime Cinco, as the stabber and in finding conspiracy; (2) whether the killing was attended by treachery; and (3) whether Mahusay should be acquitted.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s findings on credibility and the presence of conspiracy and treachery. The Court found no merit in Mahusay’s attack on the eyewitnesses’ credibility. The claim that the scene was too dark for identification was contradicted by evidence, including the defense’s own witness, which showed a well-lighted area with a fluorescent bulb nearby. The minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding the exact point from which Mahusay emerged were deemed trivial and did not affect their core narrative.
The Court found conspiracy between Mahusay and Cinco. The coordinated actions—Cinco firmly holding the victim to render him helpless while Mahusay executed the sudden stabbing—demonstrated a unity of purpose and design. This finding was bolstered by the victim’s dying declaration, where he used the plural “you” (“NINYO” in Visayan), implicating both assailants, not just Cinco alone.
Treachery (alevosia) was correctly appreciated. The mode of attack was deliberately adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailants from any defense the victim could make. Cinco’s restraining hold immobilized Baculi, allowing Mahusay to approach unexpectedly and deliver the fatal stab without any opportunity for resistance or escape. The judgment was affirmed with the modification of increasing the civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00).