PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. YAKAN MALAT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT

Yakan Malat versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Yakan Malat from a judgment of conviction for murder rendered against him by the Court of First Instance of Basilan City. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Malat, together with his brother Yakan Garcia and a third man, for the shooting death of Imam Djaliol in the evening of August 8, 1958. The case matters to the reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of how the Supreme Court weighs the positive identification of an eyewitness against an alibi, and it shows the weight given to a spontaneous identification made at the scene, before the witness had any opportunity to contrive a story.

Procedural History

The prosecution charged Yakan Malat, his brother Yakan Garcia, and a third accused with murder before the Court of First Instance of Basilan City. The trial court convicted Malat of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 6,000 pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the proportionate costs. No judgment was rendered as to the two other accused, because Yakan Garcia was later killed in an encounter with Philippine Constabulary soldiers, and the third accused remained at large. Malat appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved by the Court en banc.

Facts

At about seven thirty in the evening of August 8, 1958, Mora Sabdia, the widow of Imam Djaliol, was resting after supper in their house at sitio Bohelangong, District of Lamitan, Basilan City, together with her husband and a small child. Djaliol stood up to cover a hole in the wall. As he did so, two shots, followed by four others, were fired through that hole, hitting him on the right shoulder and on the left side of the back.

Sabdia immediately took a flashlight from the mattress beside her and focused it outside the window. At a distance of about five meters she saw the culprits and recognized the accused Yakan Malat and his brother Yakan Garcia, both armed with guns and both personally known to her as residents of the neighboring place called Pulolunay. She saw a third man near a coconut tree whom she did not recognize. She shouted for help, the three fled, and when she turned to her husband she found him already dead. Nuhaila, the sister of the deceased, and her husband Iman Bacondo, who lived about a hundred meters away, heard six shots and rushed over. They found Sabdia crying over the body, and Sabdia told them at once that her husband had been shot by Yakan Malat and his brother Yakan Garcia. When the police arrived at about ten in the evening, she named the same persons to the investigator. The sanitary inspector who examined the body found two bullet wounds as the cause of death, and the police found two empty .38 caliber shells three meters from the stairs of the house and a lead slug under it.

Asamudin Naruddin, a resident of nearby Bato-bato, heard a shot and then the sound of a gong from the direction of the deceased's house. On his way there he met the accused, his brother Garcia, and one Jalani. Malat told him not to proceed because there was nothing wrong there, and the three asked him to go fishing with them. Naruddin noticed that Malat and Garcia were carrying guns rather than fishing nets. The widow and Nuhaila also testified that before the shooting the deceased had accompanied Mora Bidao to the police station to complain against the accused over a land trouble. The defense was alibi: that Malat went fishing and was out at sea the whole night. His corroborating witnesses spoke only of a conversation with him between four and five o'clock that afternoon, and his supposed fishing companion was with him for the first time.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of the prosecution witness Mora Sabdia, identifying the accused as one of the authors of the crime, is credible.
• Whether or not the alibi presented by the defense can prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witness.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in its text. It applies the law on murder and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and it resolves the case on the rules of evidence governing the credibility of witnesses and the defense of alibi. No verbatim provision appears in the decision, so none is quoted here.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the identification by Sabdia was credible. She knew the accused personally as a resident of a neighboring place, she focused a flashlight on him from about five meters away, and she named him spontaneously and without hesitation, first to Nuhaila upon her arrival immediately after the shooting, and then to the police investigator an hour or so later. Her testimony was corroborated by Naruddin, who met the accused carrying a gun on the way to the scene of the shooting.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alibi could not prevail, even if true, over the positive statement of Sabdia. The Court noted that the corroborating witnesses testified only to a conversation with the accused between four and five o'clock that afternoon, and that his supposed fishing companion was with him for the first time. Together with the accused's admission that there was a land trouble between him and Mora Bidao, and that he knew of no reason why Sabdia and Naruddin should testify against him, the Court found no reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty as found by the trial court.

Doctrine

First, a positive identification made by an eyewitness who personally knows the accused, made spontaneously at the scene and repeated to the police shortly after, is entitled to full weight and prevails over an alibi. Second, alibi is a weak defense; it cannot prevail over positive identification, especially where the corroboration is thin and the accused was not shown to be somewhere else at the time of the crime. Third, the absence of any motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against the accused strengthens the case for the prosecution.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting Yakan Malat of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with costs against him.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, especially where the identification was made spontaneously at the scene. Examiners like to use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence: a credible eyewitness who knew the accused and named him at once outweighs a bare alibi.