Polygamy continued to be practiced in remote communities even if the government was strongly campaigning for monogamous relationship based the prewar law on marriage. Trib-al folks continued to embrace their tradition, often with leniency from the authorities.
One incident that made news in the Commonwealth was the murder committed by Datu Ambis, a Bagobo who, despite the luxury of already having five wives, wanted one more. This display of amatory behavior led to a case that reached the Supreme Court.
The story started when Ambrosia Puton, known in her village as Fortunata or Am-buyong, became a widow with five children. As any amorous individual would do, Datu Ambis made advances but the woman politely declined, citing his having multiple partners as the reason for refusal. Interestingly, he did not assert though but bitterly warned that should she remarry, he would kill her second husband.
Not too long thereafter, Ambrosia, who did not take the datu’s threat seriously, met and married Esteban Fameron. They decided to settle down, along with her five kids, at their res-idence at Baracatan, in the municipality of Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur. For a brief period, eve-rything went peacefully and orderly in the family for the new couple.
However, in the evening of May 13, 1938, while the couple were preparing the table for dinner, a shot was heard. Esteban, who was taking some food from a pot, suddenly fell to the floor face down, dead. Though stunned, she managed to look toward the door where the shot was fired and saw a man leaving with a gun on hand. She cried for help and was promptly heard by Saito Puton, her brother-in-law who hurried to Ambuyong’s residence. Along the way, he met the killer, whom he recognized as Datu Ambis, still carrying a gun.
Manuel Jumilla, the town’s sanitary inspector, examined the corpse and found a number of wounds produced by buck shots from a shotgun. The wounds on the left side of the stom-ach, just below the ribs, were identified as the lethal hits that caused the instantaneous death.
In the lower court, represented by his attorney de oficio, Datu Ambis denied being the of-fender but his defense was junked. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Davao found him guilty of murder that was qualified by treachery, attended by the exacerbating condition of the dwelling. Due to a lack of education and instruction, he was sentenced to reclusion perpet-ua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of P1,000 and to pay the litiga-tion costs.
The accused appealed his case but did not question the nature of the crime. Instead, his lawyer argued it was a case of homicide, not murder. But the Supreme Court, in September 30, 1939, decision penned by Justice Carlos A. Imperial, ruled and affirmed the lower court’s verdict:
“The qualification is erroneous and is not in accordance with the facts because the crime is qualified by treachery, the deceased having been fired upon while he had his back turned, and was also attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, which was correctly compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of education and instruction.”
It added that the crime, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, is punishable “with penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, the medium period of which is reclusion perpetua, for which reason the penalty imposed by the court is in accordance with law.”
Datu Abmis was represented in his appeal by lawyer Mario Bengzon, while the govern-ment was represented by Roman Ozaeta, then the solicitor-general.
The high tribunal’s decision was carried by The Tribune, a leading national broadsheet based in Manila, in its October 3, 1939, edition, saying: ‘MUST SERVE LIFE TERM FOR MURDER. Supreme Court Confirms Sentence in Davao Killing.’
