G.R. No. L-1746; January 31, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MORO DISIMBAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

At about midnight of June 29, 1946, in Molondo, Lanao, Putao Alangadi was awakened by persons near his house, which adjoined a corral containing his and Saadja’s carabaos. Upon lighting a lamp and looking out, he saw the appellant Moro Disimban and four other armed companions (Talinding, Macalaba, Datong, and Malamama). Upon being discovered, the group fired at the house. After another volley, Putao’s mother, Amina, cried out that she was hit; she later died from bullet wounds. Disimban then told his companions to flee because somebody was killed. Sumang Panda, another son of Amina, rushed to the house and on the way saw Disimban and his four armed companions, one carrying a shovel. At the scene, a male carabao belonging to Putao, valued at P250, was found ten arms’ length from the corral, and a pit approximately a meter wide and 28 inches deep was dug in the corral’s side, through which a carabao had been taken. The incident was reported the next day. An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Disimban. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), indemnification of the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000, and payment of costs. The defendant appealed, relying on an alibi, claiming he was home ill with malaria at the time. Defense witnesses also claimed Putao and other inmates were not in the house that night. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Putao and Sumang, whose testimonies were corroborated by disinterested witness Picarat Saro, a public school teacher who verified the events and the presence of Putao and Sumang at the house shortly after the shooting.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant Moro Disimban for the crime of robbery with homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering his defense of alibi and the conflicting testimonies.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the appellant guilty. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Putao Alangadi and Sumang Panda, who saw the malefactors and identified Disimban, to be credible and worthy of belief. Their accounts were corroborated by the disinterested witness Picarat Saro. The defense of alibi was not credible, as the testimonies of defense witnesses were found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unreliable. For instance, defense witness Bao Sultan gave conflicting statements about his role and the presence of other individuals, and his claim of being a special agent at the time was disproven. The Court also noted that the trial court correctly found the appellant to be over 18 years of age at the time of the crime, contrary to his mother’s claim. Regarding the penalty, pursuant to section 106 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, the penalty for a Mohammedan inhabitant of Mindanao, irrespective of attending circumstances, lies within the discretion of the trial court. The sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed as supported by the evidence and in accordance with law.