THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALI ITUM, SALIHON AND JAMIRUDDIN, DEFENDANTS. JAMIRUDDIN IBBO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by the defendant, Jamiruddin Ibbo, from a
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, finding him guilty of
tripple murder with serious physical injuries, and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, with legal accessories, and to indemnify the heirs of
each of the three victims in the sum of P2,000.00, plus the costs.

The evidence for the prosecution is to the effect that in the
afternoon of April 29, 1945, Jumadin, his wife Hajira and children
Marabiya and Hadjirani, and Imlani Asah were at the open kitchen on the
ground floor of their house in Sionogan, district of Indanan, Sulu, when
suddenly the appellant, together with Ali Itum and Salihon (the latter
two being still at large), armed with spears, barongs and a kris,
appeared and attacked them viciously. Hajira received spear thrusts on
her stomach, left ribs and left hand; Jumadin was speared through his
abdomen, his intestines came out, and his left hand was severed;
Hadjirani received a spear thrust on the left chest. Jumadin and
Hadjirani died on the spot, and Hajira at midnight of the same day.
Imlani Asah was merely wounded on the left buttock. When the assailants
started the assault, Marabiya ran upstairs from where she was able to
see the way it was carried out. Shortly after the attackers had fled,
Mayor Uddin of Indanan happened to pass by the house of Jumadin and
found the latter and Hadjirani lying dead, Hajira still alive, and
Imlani wounded on the left buttock. Mayor Uddin talked to Hajira who
disclosed that Jamiruddin was the one who speared her. He also
questioned Imlani, and the latter stated that the assailants were the
appellant, Ali Itum and Salihon. In the same evening Marabiya reported
the incident to Captain Maut, constabulary detachment commander, who
made an ocular inspection of the scene of the crime in the following
morning. Marabiya, however, did not file the complaint in the fiscal’s
office until after six years, because she was afraid of Ali Itum who was
still at large.

The defense set up by the appellant is an alibi. Without
discussing this at length, we are of the opinion that the prosecution
has not established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s guilt. It
is very significant that, although Marabiya is alleged to have reported
the matter to the constabulary commander on the same night of its
occurrence, it is queer that she did not make any formal complaint
before the proper prosecuting officials and it took her six years before
doing so. The allegation that she was afraid of a reprisal on the part
of the assailants who were still at large, is rather weak, considering
that she already had the courage to make an immediate report to Captain
Maut. Still more significant is the fact that the latter also failed to
bring the case to the proper authorities with a view to prosecuting the
culprits. No less important is the further circumstance that, although
the provincial fiscal filed an information against the alleged three
assailants on April 9, 1949, said information was dismissed by the
justice of the peace of Indanan. On top of all these, although it is
alleged by the prosecution that Mayor Uddin knew of the crime on the
very night of its commission, with full information of the authors
thereof, he likewise did not take the necessary steps for their
apprehension and prosecution.

On the other hand, Imlani Asah was one of the persons attacked
in the house of Jumadin and, instead of testifying for the prosecution,
testified for the defense, declaring particularly that Marabiya was not
present on the occasion in question because she was in Tamban-tamban,
the residence of her husband, four kilometers away from Sionogan, and
that the assailants were only Ali Itum and Salihon. As Imlani is
related to Hajira, his aunt, it is improbable that he would testify
falsely against his relatives and in favor of the latter’s assailants.
Although Imlani Asah signed an affidavit incriminating the appellant, he
explained in open court that he told the fiscal who investigated him
that the appellant was not among those who entered the house of Jumadin;
and the fiscal was not even presented by the prosecution as a rebuttal
witness.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the
defendant-appellant acquitted with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo,
Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.