THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MOROS MASDAL HAIRAL AND SALIM TAJIRIL, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
convicting the appellants of double murder and sentencing them to two life
imprisonments.

It appears from the record that the victims of the crime were two Moro
peddlers from Zamboanga City, named Jaila and Maadil, who, on June 13, 1952,
went by boat to Sangbay Grande Island, within the jurisdiction of Basilan City,
to collect debts due them from the two defendants, who lived there. With them
was one Hairan Tumaguidguid, who, from Zamboanga also went to the said island to
collect a debt from one Abuab. Passing the night of the day of their arrival in
the house of Hairan’s father, Panglima Tumaguidguid, the two peddlers went out
the next day, and on meeting the defendants required them to pay. But their
attempt to collect resulted in a brawl in the course of which defendant Masdal
grabbed Maadil and wrestled his wrist watch. The brawl was, however, stopped by
Maharaja Alpa or Arpa, the village headman, who advised the peddlers to go home,
promising to return to them their watch himself in the afternoon.

When the afternoon came, the peddlers went to the house of Moro Alamanza
whither they had been invited to play the gabang, a moro musical
instrument, and also to show their wares to the wife of Alamanza, a prospective
buyer. But while they were in that house, the defendants, one of them (Masdal)
armed with a Thompson submachinegun and a kris, and the other (Salim)
with a garand rifle and a barong, came before sunset and inquired of
Alamanza, who was at the door, whether the two Joloanos, referring to the
peddlers, were still there, at the same time telling Alamanza to send them down
because they wanted to kill them. Alamanza asked why they wanted to kill the
Joloanos when the trouble between them had already been fixed by the headman.
But at that instant Jaila peeped at the door, and on seeing him, defendant
Masdal shot him with his submachinegun. Jaila fell. At about the same time the
other defendant, Salim, went to the batalan (back porch) and from there shot the
other peddler, Maadil.

The shooting was witnessed not only by Alamanza but also by his wife, who was
then in the kitchen preparing food for the two peddlers.

Alamanza and his wife fled while defendants were still firing into the house.
But coming back later after leaving his wife in the house of a relative,
Alamanza found the two peddlers lying on the ground dead, and at the place at
the time were Maharaja Arpa, the defendants and the father of one of them. Going
up the house, he found bullet holes on the walls and on their trunk and its
contents.

The bodies of the peddlers were buried near the seashore by order of Arpa,
who with the two defendants thereafter took Alamanza and his wife Hatija on a
vinta to Zamboanga to report the killing to the authorities. But while on
the way they were told to corroborate only what Arpa was going to report, with
warning that they would be killed if they did not follow instructions. And due
to these threats, Alamanza and his wife signed affidavits before the deputy clek
of court in Zamboanga, corroborating what Arpa and the two defendants reported,
which was to the effect that defendants killed the two peddlers in response to
Hatija’s call for help.

But Arpa’s and defendants’ attempt to conceal the crime was thwarted by
Hairan Tumaguidguid, the woman who went with the peddlers to Sangbay Grande
Island. Leaving the island by boat she went to Maluso district, where the seat
of government was, and reported what had actually happened. She informed the
acting chief of police there that the peddlers Maadil and Jaila had gone with
her to Sangbay Grande Island from Zamboanga City for the purpose of collecting
what the defendants owed them; that when the peddlers demanded payment from
defendants the latter, who did not have money, got mad; that defendants Masdal,
in the height of his temper, grabbed Maadil and took his wrist watch; that
though the trouble was fixed by Maharaja Arpa, defendants shot and killed the
peddlers in the afternoon of the same day in the house of Alamanza.

Alamanza and his wife were called to Isabela, the seat of the government of
the City of Basilan, for questioning, and they there signed sworn statements
before the municipal judge, revealing what really had happened and explaining
that what they had stated in their previous affidavits before the acting clerk
of court was not true and that they made such statements under threat of being
killed.

About two moths after the killing, the bodies of the peddlers were dug out of
their common grave near the seashore. But the medical officer who examined the
cadavers found them to have decomposed to such an extent that it was no longer
possible to determine the injuries that produce death. However, considering
defendants’ affidavit (Exhs. “4” and “5”) that defendant Salim struck one of the
peddlers on the neck, severing the head from the body, it is significant that
the officer found “no fractures nor injuries on the skeletal remains.”

Testifying at the trial, the defendants declared that in the afternoon in
question, while the inhabitants of the village in Sangbay Grande Island were at
the mosque praying and they themselves were in their own houses, they
heard shouts for help coming from the house of Hatija, Alamanza’s wife, saying
that bandit were attacking her house. Coming to the rescue, defendants went to
said house where, upon arrival, they saw two unknown persons jumped down, one
holding a barong and the other a kris. Seeing that the two bandits
were about to attack them, defendant Masdal slashed one of them with his
kris while defendant Salim on his part hacked the other with his
barong, as a result of which the two bandits were killed. The people who
were in the mosque, who also heard shots, came to the house of Alamanza,
but they arrived there after the bandits had already been killed. Among those
who came to the place was Maharaja Arpa, who, after learning from defendants
what had happened and finding nobody in the crowd who could identify the
deceased, ordered them buried. On the following morning defendants went to
Zamboanga City and reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary and to the
city mayor. They denied having threatened Alamanza and his wife.

Thetrial court found the facts to be substantially as above stated and
convicted the defendants of double murder.

After going over the record we find no reason for disturbing the conclusions
of fact made by the trial court, as the case hinges mostly on credibility, and
the trial judge, who saw the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor on
the witness stand was in a better position to appreciate their testimony than
ourselves.

Two of the government witnesses, Alamanza and his wife, actually saw the
killing and their account thereof is convincing. If in their first affidavits
they have an entirely different version, it was because they were acting under
threats from Maharaja Arpa and the defendants themselves. Their credibility is
assailed by the defense on the theory that they must have had a grudge against
defendants because some years before the father of one of the defendants had
imputed the killing of one of his sons to the father of Hatija, Alamanza’s wife.
But it does not seem likely that for this alone, the spouses would invent lies
that might send the defendants, their recent benefactors, to jail or to the
electric chair.

The theory of the defense as to how the killing took place has nothing but
defendants’ own bias testimony to support it, unless we believe the first
affidavits of Alamanza and his wife, which were repudiated by the couple
themselves as being false and given under threats of death. The theory does not
jibe with the fact that the deceased were by overwhelming proof shown to be no
bandits at all but jewelry peddler who had gone to Sangbay Grande Island for the
purpose of collecting money from the defendants. And if, as claimed by
defendants the deceased were hacked to death and the head of one of them was
severed from the body (as stated in their affidavit exhs. “4” and “5”), then why
is it that their skeleletal remains show no signs of fracture or injury?
Decomposition of the flesh may have obliterated the wounds; but the condition of
the skeletons is mute testimony to the fact that, as declared by the prosecution
witnesses, the victims were killed with bullets, and not with bladed weapons as
claimed by the defense.

It appears certain, as testified to by Hairan Tumaguidguid, that the deceased
had gone to Sangbay Grande Island to collect ehat the defendants owed them. And
it is likewise certain that the defendants and the deceased had a brawl in the
morning of the day of the killing. Though temporarily pacified by the village
headman, the defendants must have resented the incident. So, taking advantage of
the fact that the headman and many of the village inhabitants were in the
mosque praying, defendants went to the house of Alamanza and attacked the
deceased. The witness Hairan Tumaguidguid is have any motive for testifying
falsely against them.

We agree with the Solicitor General that the crime committed is munder, for
the attack was made with firearms and the victims were unarmed and with no means
of defense or escape, trapped as they were inside a house. The killing was,
therefore, committed with alevosia, so that the resulting crime was
murder. And while according to the evidence one defendant killed one of the
deceased and the other defendant the other deceased, both must answer for both
killings, since it is obvious that they were acting in concert as if by
agreement. Both appeared at the scene of the killing at the same time, both were
armed to the teeth, and both used their weapons at almost the same time,
actuated apparently by the same motive. These facts are proof of conspiracy and
make the two defendants responsible for the killing of each of the deceased.
Both are, therefore, guilty of two murders.

We must, however, appreciate in favor of the appellants the mitigating
circumstance of volutary surrender, it appearing that after the killing they
went to Zamboanga City to report to the authorities. The penalty for murder must
therefore be imposed in its minimum degree. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the appellants are sentence each to an indeterminate penalty of from 10
years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum for each of the murder
committed, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Maadil in the sum of P6,000 and those of Jaila also in the sum of
P6,000, and to pay the costs.

Modified accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed, with cost.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
and Reyes, J.B.L., concur.