On October 30, 1934, the  provincial  fiscal of  Zamboanga filed an information charging Dalmani  (alias Jalmani)  and Marudi, both Moros, with the crime of murder, alleged to have been perpetrated as follows:

"That on or about the 10th day of September, 1934, in the sitio of Latung, municipal district of Siasi, Province of Sulu, Philippine Islands, the herein defendants conspiring, confederating together and helping each other, did then and there enter the inhabited  house of  one Luis Dugaduga at nighttime, and with  evident premeditation and treachery, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, beat and attack with blade weapons said Luis Dugaduga whom they found sleeping, thereby inflicting upon him six mortal wounds in the different parts of the body which caused his instant death."

When arraigned, both accused pleaded  not guilty to the charge.  Due to their inability to hire the services of counsel the lower court appointed an attorney de oficio.  After trial, Francisco Zulueta, judge of the  Court  of First Instance of Zamboanga, found  both  accused guilty of  the crime charged  with the aggravating circumstance  of  nocturnity, and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the  sum  of one  thousand pesos,  with the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs.   Only Moro Dalmani (alms Jalmani) appeals from this decision of the trial court and, through his counsel de oficio in this instance, submits the following assignment of errors:

1. The trial court erred in finding the appellant Dalmani (alias Jalmani) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the aggravating circumstance  of  nocturnity.
   
   
2. The trial court erred in  sentencing the  appellant to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of one thousand pesos, and to pay the costs.
   
   
3. The trial court erred in not acquitting the appellant of the crime wit to which he is  charged."

At the time of the  occurrence, the deceased,  Luis Duga-duga, was living with his Moro wife,  Langka,  his fourteen-year old daughter, Asuncion, his seven-year old boy, Florencio and the family Moro servant, Aradais, in the sitio of Sipangan  (Latung),  municipal  district of  Siasi, Sulu. According to the evidence for the defense, there were be- sides in his house at the time Moros Pajiji and Salip Sakati, but this is denied by the prosecution.  The crime took place at about midnight  of September 10, 1934.  It  was perpetrated while the deceased was  sleeping near the door of the house.  The door  leading to the place where the deceased was sleeping was at the time wide open.  There was a petroleum lamp inside the house.  According to the nurse (dispensary-attendant)  who examined  the  body  the day following the occurrence, the deceased sustained the following wounds the most serious of which was that indicated as No. 2:

1. A cut wound  below the right  mammary gland about 2 1/2 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
   
   
2. A penetrating punctured wound at the upper right side of the abdominal cavity  about 2 inches long with a portion of the intestines coming out thru.
   
   
3. A cut wound on the left side of the epigastrium about 3 inches long and 1/2 inch deep.
   
   
4. A cut wound about 2  inches long and 1  inch deep on the left side of the abdominal cavity at the level of the umbilical cord.
   
   
5. A cut wound about 2  inches long and 1  inch deep on the right forearm 1  inch below the elbow.  The bone is cut.
   
   
6. A cut wound on the right wrist about 1 inch  long and I inch deep.

The eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime were Mora Langka, widow of the deceased, and Asuncion, a fourteen-year old daughter of the deceased. Aradais, the family servant, did not testify.

Langka swore that on September 10,1934, she was living with her  husband Luis Dugaduga, their  children Asuncion and Florencio, and the family servant  Aradais,  in  their house in  sitio Sipangan, municipal district of Siasi, Sulu; that at about midnight of that date she was awakened by her daughter Asuncion who felt the necessity of answering a minor call of nature; that thereafter, she sat down to chew buyo and it was then when Dalmani (alias  Jalmani)  and Marudi entered the house armed with Jxirongs and immediately attacked her husband; that  the door of the house was open at the time; that it was Dalmani  who gave the first blow hitting her husband in the abdomen; that she did not see what Marudi did because she and her children ran away to hide in a nearby banana plantation; that Aradais also ran away and went to the house of his father, Ladja; that thereafter she returned to the house with her children Asuncion  and  Florencio,  and  they found  her  husband already  dead; and  that there was  an  ill-feeling between her husband and Dalmani because the  latter had stolen a horse belonging to her husband on account of  which a complaint for theft was filed against Dalmani.

Asuncion Dugaduga, the  daughter of the  deceased substantially corroborated the testimony of her mother.

The appellant denied having killed or  in any way participated in the killing of the deceased.   He testified that in the morning of September  10,  1934, he left Latung (Sipangan) bound for Laminuza and  here found  the municipal treasurer of  Laminuza  from whom lie bought  a cedula. This part of his testimony Is corroborated by the municipal treasurer referred to, Saradjani Lumandun.  It is also corroborated by Fanglima Idlana, councilor for Laminuza, who declared having seen the appellant when the  latter left Laminuza in his vinta bound for Lu'uk at noon of that same day.  The  appellant further testified that he arrived at Lu'uk at about sunset of Monday, September  10, 1934; that he stayed in the fish corral of Maharadja Absara,  and that he  did not leave the place  until the following Thursday when he was arrested by Moro Almara, an agent of the provincial  governor  of Sulu.  This  part  of  his testimony is corroborated  by  Maharadja Absara, councilor of Kuta Sihi, Jolo, who testified that Dalmani arrived at his (Absara's)  fish corral in Lu'uk at about 7 p. m. on Monday, September 10,  1934, and that Dalmani remained there the whole night of that day and until his  arrest the following Thursday.   Maharadja Absara  also testified that he  and Dalmani passed the night of September 10,  1934, in their respective vintas which were berthed side by side; that he slept only one-third of the time during the  night of September  10,  1934, and that when he  awoke  the  following morning he found Dalmani in the vinta by  his side.

The trial court accepted the  testimony  of Langka  and Asuncion as worthy of credence.  Ordinarily, this finding should not be disturbed in view of the fact  that the trial judge saw the witnesses testify and otherwise had a  better opportunity to gauge their credibility.   There are, however, facts and circumstances of record which considered in isolation may seem  unimportant, but if taken together and considered in the light  of certain events now to be referred to, are sufficient to raise in the mind of this court a grave doubt as to the guilt of the defendant-appellant  Dalmani, "that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole  proof and an inability, after such investigation,  to let  the mind rest easy upon the  certainty of guilt."   (U.  S. vs. Lasada [1910], 18 Phil., 90, 96.)

It should be observed that Marudi, co-accused of the appellant Dalmani, and who did not appeal from the judgment of the trial  court, admitted having taken part in the conspiracy to kill the deceased, Luis Dugaduga.   He also admitted having accompanied Ladja, Balaji, Paraji and Jajalis to the house of the deceased  at  Latung,  municipal district of Siasi,  Sulu, at about midnight of September 10, 1934, to kill Luis  Dugaduga, although he alleged that  he and Ladja remained down below the house to keep watch. He pointed to Jajalis, son  of Ladja, as the one who with his barong delivered the first blow hitting the deceased, who was then sleeping,  in  the abdomen, and that thereafter Balaji and Paraji followed suit and also assaulted the deceased with their weapons.

Marudi, it should be observed, declared against his own interest and seems satisfied with having done so for he has not  appealed  from the verdict of the trial  court.  Why Marudi implicated Ladja, Balaji, Paraji and Jajalis if these individuals had  not participated in the commission of the crime is not explained.  Ladja is the uncle of Marudi who used to call him father-in-law; Jajalis is the son of Ladja; Balaji  and Paraji  are brothers, and first cousins of the mother of Marudi.  Marudi had  no reason at least the record does  not disclose any for  implicating  his  close relatives.  The fact that he admitted his participation in the commission  of the crime and testified against his own relatives gives the impression, in the absence of satisfactory explanation,  that he told the truth.  If  Marudi testified falsely in  this respect, why was not anyone of those implicated by him called to contradict him?  Not even Ladja or Jajalis was summoned, and there is no explanation given for this failure of the government.

Marudi  also testified that Langka was the paramour of Jajalis and that the deceased at one time before the killing had surprised them in the act.  This imputation is denied by Langka.   Pressed, however, by counsel for the defense on cross examination,  she admitted "que conocia mucho a Jajalis", and that at times '"Jajalis vivia, dormia y comia en la casa", and that she had  with him "gran intimidad y confianza" (s. n., page 103), and this intimacy and confidence seemed to have continued for some time.  This part of the  testimony of Langka tends to corroborate the statement of Marudi that Jajalis lived in the house of the deceased, and that at the time of the occurrence said Jajalis was in the house.  It is also corroborative of the testimony of Panglima  Jakarnain, municipal president of Siasi, that the deceased some time in the month of August before his death complained of the conduct  of his wife.  It should further be observed that according to  Langka  and her daughter Asuncion, Aradais, brother of Jajalis, was at the time of the occurrence sleeping in the  house hardly three brazas from the deceased and that upon being awakened, he simply scurried away to  his father's house.   The next morning Ladja accompanied Langka to Lieutenant Vidamo, deputy governor of Siasi, and Langka pointed to Dalmani and Marudi as the authors of the death of her husband.

It is a strange coincidence  that Langka, the wife of the deceased, happened to be awake at midnight on September 10, 1934,  precisely at the time  when  her  husband wag allegedly assaulted by Dalmani.  The explanation that she had been  awakened  by her  daughter Asuncion who had to answer a minor call of nature  cannot be unhesitatingly accepted.   Asuncion  at the time  was 14 years old and a sixth  grade pupil in  the  public schools.   Why it was necessary for her to awaken her mother for this purpose  is not easy to understand.   It seems out of the ordinary that every time a girl of this  age  and  education had to urinate at night inside the house she had to awaken her mother, and if this was the only occasion she did it, it was another coincidence.  Then, according to the testimony of Langka, after  her daughter had  satisfied the call of nature, she (Langka)  sat down in the kitchen about three meters from the place  where her  husband was sleeping to chew  buyo. It was then that the assassins went up the house and killed her husband.  This  is another rare coincidence  Again, according to her testimony, the principal door of the house leading  to the place where her husband was sleeping was wide open such as to  have enabled the assassins of her husband  to enter freely the house and perpetrate the  crime. Was the wide  opening of the door at that dead hour of the night also a mere coincidence? Aradais, brother of Jajalis, was at the time of the killing inside the house.  He was the family servant at the time and was sleeping close to his master,  the deceased. If we may accept the.testimony of Asuncion, nothing was done  by him except  to run to the house of his father Ladja and to return at day-break to the house of his master.  Langka in her direct testimony testified that after some hours of hiding in a banana plantation she returned to the house accompanied  by her two children.  To  the same effect is the  testimony of  her daughter Asuncion.   On cross examination,  however, in her rebuttal testimony,  Langka admitted having been accompanied also by Aradais and Ladja.   A  good  wife would probably have  done more than to  run upon  seeing  her husband hacked to death, but giving her  the benefit  of having been impelled by the superior instinct of self-preservation and that she had  to  flee at sight, it is hard to understand how she could have gathered enough strength to return  to the same  house some  two hours afterward accompanied by her two children without knowing whether the assailants were still there  or not; and if, as she also later  testified, she and her children  were accompanied  by Aradais and Ladja, it  should be observed that Aradais was in  the house at the time of the assault, and it must have  been  the  presence of Ladja,  father  of  Jajalis and Aradais, that  gave her the  courage to  return  without knowing whether the assailants were still roaming at large in the house.

The foregoing circumstances are very significant and considered  in the light of the testimony of  Marudi and president Jakarnain of Siasi, show that the theory of the defense that Langka was not foreign to and  much  less ignorant of the plot to kill her husband is not entirely devoid of foundation.

Now  as to the motive of the crime.   While  it is not always necessary to  prove the  motive in  criminal prosecutions, it is frequently important to know the reason for the commission of the criminal act to gain the  desired judicial perspective in any given case-  The  motive imputed to the herein defendant-appellant for killing Luis Dugaduga is the alleged filing of a complaint by the latter against the former for the theft of  a  horse said to pertain to the deceased. We find, however, that the alleged theft took  place more than two years before the killing of Dugaduga, or to be exact, on May 20, 1932.  (Exhibt 1, Defense.)   According to1 Marudi, the case had been amicably settled between the parties.  At any rate,  the complaint appears to have been dismissed by the  justice of the peace court of Siasi  upon motion of Dugaduga himself (Exhibit 2, Defense).  Under these circumstances, we are reluctant to believe that this incident of the stealing of a horse was the motive for the killing of the deceased.  But assuming that the appellant had harbored in his breast an ill-feeling towards the deceased for two consecutive years  because  of this  incident of the disappearance of a horse, there is nothing to show that Marudi, his co-accused in  the lower court, had any reason for killing the deceased.   There is no  evidence of friendship or intimacy between Dalmani and Marudi; on the contrary, according to Marudi, they only became fully acquainted in jail after their arrest.  We are not, of  course, concerned with Marudi in this appeal, but reference to him and to his motive in this connection is made  to show  that, as contended by counsel de oficio for Dalmani in this instance, Marudi had  more  reason for joining  the Ladja people because of his kinship with them than with Dalmani for whom  he did not  profess even the slightest  friendship. Upon the other hand, there is reason to believe in the long standingr enmity between fralmani  and the Ladja family. It appears that Dalmani had married  Tata, the wife of Jajalis, on account of which  the latter filed a complaint against the two for bigamy  (Exhibit 3,  Defense).   The complaint was dismissed by the justice  of  the  peace court of Siasi because it appeared that the Sultan had previously granted .a divorce to Tata before the latter's marriage to Dalmani  (Exhibit 4,  Defense).   Jajalis according to the theory of the defense, is the paramour of Langka.  Jajalis is the son of Ladja and brother to Aradais.  According to the appellant,  Balaji was his rival for the post of councilor for Latung  in lieu of Datu Bara and that when he was proposed by various presidents and councilors for the position, Ladja  and Jajalis resented  it.   (S. n., p.  72.)  According to  the appellant also, the  original complainant against him for  the theft of a  horse was  Jajalis but that the complaint was later presented by Luis Dugaduga, the deceased.  An examination of the copy of the complaint attached  to  the record as Exhibit 1  of the  defense shows that Ladja and Jajalis were among  the witnesses for the government. With this background, it is easier to under- stand how the appellant Dalmani could have been thrown into the scene as an active participant in the commission of the crime than for Marudi,  without any reason at all, to have implicated his near relatives, Ladja, Jajalis, Balaji and Paraji,  in the killing of Luis Dugaduga.

As indicated, the defense of the defendant-appellant is an alibi.  This defense  is,  indeed, too commonly resorted  to and too easily concocted as to warrant the exercise of great caution on the part of the courts.  We note, however, that the provincial fiscal of Sulu in his memorandum in the court below, dated March 2, 1935, contends that  even  if the appellant had really been in Laminuza in the morning of Monday, September 10, 1934, to buy a cedula from the  deputy treasurer, Saradjani Lumandun, it was yet possible for him to have returned  to Latung or Sipangan in the afternoon and commit the crime at night of-that same day,  but  he does not nor could he reasonably argue that if, as contended by the defense, the appellant was in Lu'uk at 7 p. m. on September 10, 1934, the latter  could still be in Latung  or Sipangan to commit the murder imputed to him at about midnight of that  same day.  Laminuza is an island under the jurisdiction of Siasi and can be reached from Sipangan by vinta in an hour, but Lu'uk is very  far from  Latung or Sipangan "es muy Ujos, porque estd  en la Isla de Jolo." (Testimony of Saradjani Lumandun, deputy treasurer  of Siasi, s. n., p. 89.)  The court takes  judicial cognizance of the fact that while the channel separating Sipangan and Laminuza Island is only one nautical mile wide, thirty odd nautical miles of open sea separate Sipangan from the municipal district  of  Lu'uk in the Island of Jolo,  which distance it is physically impossible to traverse in five hours by vinta.

In view of what has been said, it does not seem necessary to indulge in any extended analysis of the evidence presented by the  defense.  To be sure, there were two  ocular witnesses to the killing of the deceased, namely: Mora Langka, the widow  of the  deceased,  and her daughter Asuncion. Nevertheless, in the light of facts and circumstances of record we feel that it is far better to acquit a man upon the ground  of reasonable doubt, even though  he may in reality  be guilty, than to confine in the  penitentiary for the rest of his life a person who may be innocent.  (People vs.  Asinas  [1929], 53 Phil., 59,  71.)

After careful  perusal  of the evidence,  we  are of the opinion that there is  at  least reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant-appellant.  The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, hereby reversed with costs de oficio.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Recto, JJ., concur.