THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. IMAM SAWAH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, IMAM SAWAH, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Imam Sawah, Usmal Jahad, and Sarail Tahil were charged with murder
in the Court of First Instance of Sulu. Jahad pleaded guilty and was
sentenced accordingly. Sawah and Tahil, tried on a plea of not guilty
were convicted as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Lorenzo
Nuega in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay each one-third of the costs.
Both appealed, but on February 22, 1962 Tahil filed—and this Court
approved—a motion withdrawing his appeal.

On and prior to November 5, 1954, Lt. Gaudencio Nuega owned a parcel
of land situated at sitio Suba Tigui, Tapul District, Sulu, which he
placed under the administration of his brother, Lorenzo, who lived
alone in a house built on the property. For one reason or another, he
incurred the enmity of his neighbor, appellant Sawah, who, as the
appellation “Imam” indicates, was a priest, in charge of a mosque in
sitio Tigui.

On November 5, 1954 Lorenzo Nuega was killed. The direct evidence
establishing the motive and circumstances surrounding the killing
consists exclusively of the testimony of Usmal Jahad, the accused who
pleaded guilty in the lower court, to the following effect:

That about ten days prior to November 5, 1954, Sawah visited him at
his house located at sitio Bud Lugus and proposed that he kill Lorenzo;
that he declined saying that he had no reason at all to kill Lorenzo
whom he didn’t even know; that Sawah came to visit him again insisting
in his proposition, but again he declined; that a week prior to
November 5, 1954, he embraced Haridja, daughter of councilor Salip
Pulag, a resident of Bud Lugus, for which he was fined P150.00; that
apparently having come to know of this, Sawah came to see him again in
the afternoon of November 4 to reiterate his proposition, delivering to
him the sum of P50.00 and promising to give him P500.00 more as soon as
he had killed Lorenzo Nuega, and assuring him further that one Sarail
Tahil would help him carry out their plan; that to carry out the
murder, Tahil would engage Lorenzo in conversation to distract him and
that upon a signal to be given by Tahil, Jahad would surreptitiously
approach Lorenzo from behind and stab him; that early in the morning of
November 5 Sawah, Tahil and the witness met in the mosque of the
former, from which place they started towards Lorenzo’s house only
about 80 brazas away; that Sawah separated from them when they were
about 20 meters away from said house; that the witness and Tahil saw
Lorenzo squatting on the batalan on his house washing clothes and Tahil
went up upon Lorenzo’s invitation; that while conversing with Lorenzo
he gave the signal to Jahad who immediately approached Lorenzo from
behind and struck him with a barong at the nape killing him instantly;
that when he saw through an opening of the door the carbine and pistol
of Lorenzo hanging on a post, he took them and ran away; that he
forthwith went to see appellant Sawah to inform him that Lorenzo had
already been killed and demanded the P500.00 promised reward, but Sawah
failed to pay, telling him instead that he could keep the firearms;
that two days afterward he surrendered to councilor Pulag who took him
to the provincial governor with his barong and the stolen carbine and
pistol.

As the defense of appellant Sawah consists merely of denials, the question before us resolves itself into one of credibility.

With respect to the credibility of Usmal Jahad, the trial judge says the following:

“At the time of the incident, Usmal
Jahad was residing at Bud Lugus, 15 kilometers distance from the house
of Lorenzo Nuega. He did not even know him then nor his place of
residence. He had no quarrel whatsoever with Lorenzo Nuega. On the
contrary, it was Imam Sawah who was determined to deprive Lorenzo Nuega
of his life. Umal Jahad was a young man, 20 years of age, belonging to
a poor family. He is a simple man, ignorant and unlettered. He had just
then embraced the daughter of Salip Pulag, the headman of Bud Lugus,
for which act he was fined P150.00. On that fateful Thursday afternoon
when Imam Sawah handed to Usmal Jahad the amount of P50.00, with a
promise to add P500.00 should he be able to kill Lorenzo Nuega, he was
tempted. He accepted the offer, and promised to meet Imam Sawah and
Sarail Tahil in Imam Sawah’s mosque at Suba Tiqui early the next
morning. Imam Sawah was a close friend of Usmal Jahad. He absolutely
had no reason to falsely implicate him in a serious crime of murder.
The defense failed to prove that Usmal Jahad had a compelling motive to
implicate Imam Sawah and Sarail Tahil. The defense tried to prove that
the, motive of Umal Jahad in killing Lorenzo Nuega was to enable the
former to take hold of the firearms of the latter to defend himself
from Councilor Pulag and his relatives. This theory, however, was
exploded by the very testimony of Vice Mayor Dugasan for the defense
that shortly after Umal Jahad took possession of said firearms, he
surrendered them to the authorities. The contention of the defense that
Umal Jahad surrendered the firearms to the authorities because Salip
Pulag, for whom the firearms were intended, could no longer be located,
is likewise untenable because Vice Mayor Dugasan himself testified that
Salip Pulag was with the party that went to Jolo to surrender Umal
Jahad to the Provincial Governor. Then, in the course of the
investigation by the Provincial Fiscal on November 9, 1954, just a few
days after the incident, Umal Jahad executed an affidavit (Exhibit “3”)
which in substance corroborated his testimony given in open court. This
again indicates lack of afterthought.

* * * * * *

“As
already stated above, this Court had occasion to observe the demeanor
of Umal Jahad while on the witness stand. He gave his testimony with
ease and without hesitation. In the absence of any motive on his part
to testify falsely against his co-accused, this Court is compelled to
give full credence to his testimony. In the case of People vs. De Otero, 51 Phil., 201, the Supreme Court stated:

‘As was announced in the notorious case of United States vs.
Pajarillo (1911), 19 Phil., 288), the absence of all evidence as to an
improper motive actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution
strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive
existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.'”
(pp. 11-12, 15-16, decision)

After a careful review of the record, we have found no reason at all
to disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court. The mere
denials made by appellant Sawah can not in any degree weaken the
positive testimony of witness Jahad, which appears to be intrinsically
credible. On the other hand, as already stated, His Honor, the trial
Judge, who ha4 the peculiar privilege of observing Jahad’s conduct and
demeanor while testifying, found—we believe correctly—that he deserved
full credit.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.