ZAMBOANGA CITY — State prosecutors in the Bangsamoro region have recommended the filing of multiple criminal charges against Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan, Mayor Arsina Kahing Nanoh, her husband and several relatives and associates over a deadly sea ambush that killed three people and wounded two others hours before the May 12, 2025 elections.
The recommendation is contained in a 28-page Joint Resolution dated July 2, 2026 issued by the Department of Justice Regional Prosecution Office No. XIV (RPO 14), which covers the provinces and cities comprising the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM).
The resolution recommends the filing of criminal informations involving three counts of murder, two counts of frustrated murder and multiple counts of attempted murder against Nanoh, her husband Nadz Nanoh, and several other respondents identified by prosecutors as allegedly involved in the incident.
Named in the resolution are Nanoh’s uncle and former convict Walihiul Allama, her father Hadji Rahim Kahim, Sangbay Small Barangay Chairman and uncle Lucman Kahing, security aide Tudy Bayro, Sing Hassan, and seven other individuals identified only as “John Does.”
The prosecution, however, dismissed the complaints against Nurissa Kahing, citing the absence of sufficient evidence positively identifying her or establishing her participation in the attack.
The recommendation does not constitute a finding of guilt. The respondents remain entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence unless and until a court determines otherwise.
Deadly attack before election day
The case stemmed from a predawn maritime shooting at about 1 a.m. on May 12, 2025, near the waters off Barangay Sangbay Big in Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan.
According to the prosecution records, a pump boat carrying supporters and poll watchers of then mayoral candidate Hadji Jamar Abdullah Mansul was intercepted by two speedboats allegedly owned or controlled by Nanoh.
The passengers were reportedly surrounded at sea before armed men allegedly opened fire on them.
Three people were killed in the attack.
The fatalities were identified as Ben Bakil, Murasidol Abdurahman and Samir Jamiri Allil, while Habir Alih and Saldi Alih survived but sustained serious gunshot wounds.
Mansul, whose supporters were reportedly aboard the attacked pump boat, later lost the mayoral race to Nanoh.
The timing of the incident — just hours before voters were scheduled to cast their ballots — became a central element in the prosecution’s assessment of the case.
Prosecutors allege conspiracy despite mayor’s absence
One of the most significant findings in the DOJ resolution was the conclusion that Nanoh could allegedly be held responsible even though she was not physically present at the scene when the shooting occurred.
The prosecution panel said the circumstances presented in the case indicated an alleged conspiracy involving the mayor and the other respondents.
Among the factors cited by prosecutors were the alleged ownership of the speedboats used in the attack, the identities and relationships of the alleged gunmen, and their purported connections to Nanoh as relatives or security personnel.
The panel also considered the political circumstances surrounding the incident, including the fact that the victims were allegedly supporters and poll watchers of Nanoh’s rival in the mayoral contest.
Prosecutors concluded that the circumstances indicated an alleged motive to prevent the victims from participating in the election and supporting Nanoh’s political opponent.
However, the prosecution’s recommendation remains subject to the judicial process. The filing of criminal informations would allow the evidence and allegations to undergo further examination before the courts, where the accused will have the opportunity to contest the charges.
Police initially described incident as sea battle
The DOJ resolution also rejected an earlier police narrative that characterized the shooting as a legitimate law enforcement operation.
Following the incident, the Hadji Muhtamad Municipal Police Station, under then Chief of Police PMAJ Nursaibar L. Mahadi, filed a counter-complaint against surviving passengers of the pump boat for attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms.
Police investigators claimed that officers had engaged the occupants of the boat in a confrontation at sea after allegedly coming under fire.
Authorities also reported recovering an M16 rifle from the victims’ boat.
The police account, however, was challenged by the prosecution’s evaluation of the forensic evidence.
The DOJ panel ultimately dismissed the criminal complaints filed against the surviving victims, finding them without sufficient merit.
Forensic findings challenge alleged exchange of fire
Forensic evidence became a key factor in the prosecutors’ rejection of the police account.
According to the resolution, the deceased victims tested negative for gunshot or gunpowder residue.
The prosecution considered the forensic findings inconsistent with the assertion that the victims had engaged police personnel in an exchange of gunfire.
The resolution noted that the absence of gunpowder residue on the victims raised serious questions about whether they had fired weapons during the incident.
Prosecutors also pointed to another circumstance: despite three fatalities and two passengers suffering serious gunshot wounds, none of the police officers involved in the supposed armed confrontation reportedly sustained injuries or produced medical certificates documenting injuries from the encounter.
These circumstances led the DOJ panel to question whether the incident had actually been a legitimate police operation as initially claimed.
The resolution stressed the importance of forensic and scientific examinations in determining what happened during the confrontation.
DOJ refers police conduct for administrative investigation
Because of what prosecutors described as apparent irregularities surrounding the police operation, the DOJ also referred the matter to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and the PNP Internal Affairs Service (IAS).
The referral calls for an administrative investigation into the conduct of the police personnel involved and possible grave abuse of authority.
The referral is separate from the criminal cases recommended against Nanoh and the other respondents.
It also means that questions surrounding the conduct of the police officers during and after the maritime encounter may undergo a separate administrative review.
The investigation will be expected to determine whether police personnel acted within the bounds of their authority, whether firearms and other evidence were properly handled, and whether the original account of the encounter was supported by sufficient evidence.
Mayor’s supporters urge fairness
Amid the renewed attention to the case, supporters of Mayor Nanoh have emphasized her public service and humanitarian efforts in Hadji Muhtamad.
Supporters have cited her presence during maritime incidents and emergencies affecting residents and nearby communities, saying she has assisted families and coordinated responses during difficult situations.
They argue that her record of public service should also be considered as the legal proceedings move forward.
At the same time, some supporters have acknowledged that backing the mayor should not mean disregarding the demands for truth and justice surrounding the shooting.
They have called for the evidence to be evaluated by the proper authorities and the courts without political pressure.
“If Mayor Nanoh is innocent, may the truth clear her name,” supporters said in their appeal for due process, while also stressing that anyone ultimately proven responsible should face the consequences under the law.
Their position underscores the distinction between political support for a public official and the separate legal question of whether the prosecution can establish criminal liability beyond the required standard of proof.
Victims’ families seek justice and closure
For the families of Bakil, Abdurahman and Allil, as well as the survivors of the attack, the case represents a long-running search for accountability over an incident that unfolded on the eve of a local election.
The deaths not only deprived three families of their loved ones but also left two other passengers seriously wounded.
The circumstances surrounding the attack have also raised broader concerns about election-related violence, the use of armed personnel during political contests, and the security of voters and election workers in geographically isolated communities.
The prosecution’s resolution could therefore have implications beyond the individual respondents, particularly if the case proceeds to trial and the allegations are subjected to judicial scrutiny.
Charges still have to be proven in court
The DOJ recommendation marks a significant development, but it is not the final determination of the respondents’ criminal liability.
The next stages will involve the formal filing of criminal informations, court proceedings and the presentation and testing of evidence.
The prosecution will have to establish the elements of the offenses charged and demonstrate the individual participation and criminal responsibility of each accused.
Nanoh’s alleged involvement is particularly significant because prosecutors are relying on circumstances indicating conspiracy rather than claiming that she personally carried out the shooting.
The other respondents will likewise have the opportunity to challenge the allegations, dispute the evidence and present their own defenses.
The dismissal of the complaint against Nurissa Kahing also demonstrates that the prosecution did not recommend charges against every person initially linked to the case. Prosecutors said there was insufficient direct identification or proof of her participation.
A case with political and institutional implications
The case comes against the backdrop of longstanding concerns over election-related violence in parts of Mindanao, where political rivalries can intersect with armed groups, family networks and local security structures.
The allegations are particularly serious because the incident reportedly occurred only hours before voters were expected to participate in the 2025 elections.
At the same time, the case also places law enforcement conduct under scrutiny after prosecutors rejected the initial characterization of the incident as a legitimate police engagement.
The dual track of the proceedings — criminal charges against the alleged perpetrators and an administrative investigation into the police response — makes the case significant for both electoral security and police accountability in the Bangsamoro region.
Ultimately, the courts will determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the criminal liability of Nanoh and the other respondents.
Until then, the victims and their families remain entitled to justice, while the accused remain entitled to the full protection of due process and the presumption of innocence.
The central question now is not whether accusations have been made, but whether those accusations can withstand judicial examination and be proven with admissible and credible evidence.
For the families of those killed and wounded, the proceedings offer an opportunity to finally establish what happened in the waters off Hadji Muhtamad in the early hours of May 12, 2025 — and to determine accountability based on evidence rather than political allegiance.
Whatever the eventual outcome, the case underscores the need for an impartial investigation, credible law enforcement, protection of witnesses and victims, and a judicial process free from political influence.
Justice, in the end, must protect both sides: those seeking accountability for the dead and wounded, and those accused who are entitled to be judged only on evidence established in court.