THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AQUILINO PACALA AND TRANQUILINO PACALA, JR. ALIAS CHACOY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Pacala

The Case

This is the automatic review of a death sentence and the appeal of a sentence of reclusion perpetua, both arising from a single killing in a coastal barrio of Samar. The People charged five men with robbery with homicide for the death of Jose Bacsal. Two of them died while the appeal was pending, and the Supreme Court confined itself to the appeals of the two remaining accused, Aquilino Pacala and Tranquilino Pacala, Jr. The case matters because it teaches, with unusual clarity, that the robbery in robbery with homicide must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime, and that when it is not, the killing is reduced to homicide or murder, depending on the qualifying circumstances.

Procedural History

A criminal complaint for robbery with homicide was filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Villareal, Samar, which conducted the preliminary examination and issued the warrant of arrest. After the accused waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch One, of the Thirteenth Judicial District, where the Provincial Fiscal filed the information. The trial court convicted the accused of robbery with homicide and imposed the death penalty on Cipriano Saberon, Patricio Pacala, and Aquilino Pacala, and reclusion perpetua on Tranquilino Pacala, Jr. The case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review as to those sentenced to death and on appeal as to the one sentenced to reclusion perpetua. During the pendency of the appeal, Cipriano Saberon and Patricio Pacala died in the New Bilibid Prisons, and the cases against them were dismissed. The decision therefore resolved only the appeals of Aquilino Pacala and Tranquilino Pacala, Jr.

Facts

On the evening of November 17, 1964, in Sitio Binotong, Barrio Guintarcan, Villareal, Samar, Jose Bacsal and his son Roque were in a small open hut near the site where a new house was being built. The night was bright with moonlight. Five men surrounded the hut: the brothers Patricio, Aquilino, Francisco, and Tranquilino Pacala, and their uncle Cipriano Saberon. Cipriano fired a pistol, and father and son jumped to the ground and ran. Roque hid in the tall grasses about sixty meters away. Looking back, he saw Cipriano holding his father while Patricio stabbed him below the armpit. When the victim broke free and ran, Francisco chased and slashed him on the back. The five men then surrounded the fallen Jose Bacsal. Aquilino held a firearm pointed forward, and Tranquilino, also known as Chacoy, held a bolo. At Cipriano's order to finish the victim so he would not speak, Tranquilino repeatedly boloed him on the forehead.

The barrio captain, Victoriano Fortaleza, arrived in response to shouts for help and heard the dying man faintly say, "I'll die," and, when asked who wounded him, name Patricio and Francisco. The autopsy showed profuse internal hemorrhage from several stab wounds to the head, chest, and lumbar region, with the stomach and abdominal aorta wounded. Only after the barrio captain arrived did Roque return to the hut, where he discovered that his transistor radio and a wooden trunk containing cash of 1,700 pesos were missing. No one witnessed the taking, and none of the stolen items was ever recovered.

Patricio admitted killing the victim but claimed self-defense on a story of being chased from the hut, and denied that Aquilino, Tranquilino, and Cipriano took part. Aquilino and Tranquilino set up alibis, placing themselves in Leyte and in Catbalogan respectively, but called no corroborating witnesses. Modesto Leyson, fishing nearby, recognized all five men in the moonlight as their boat passed within four brazas of his, saw them land and head toward the hut, and then heard two gun reports.

Issues

• Whether or not the robbery was sufficiently proven to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide.
• Whether or not the testimonies of Roque Bacsal and Modesto Leyson deserve credence despite alleged contradictions and improbabilities.
• Whether or not the absence in the information of a certification by the Provincial Fiscal that a preliminary investigation was conducted rendered the proceedings and judgment null and void.

Applicable Provisions

Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, on the mitigating circumstance of minority, provides:

That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80.

The Court credited Tranquilino Pacala, who was eighteen years old at the time of the crime, with this mitigating circumstance.

Section 14 of Rule 112, on the certification in the information, provides:

No information for an offense cognizable by the Court of First Instance shall be filed without a previous preliminary investigation having been conducted in accordance with the provisions of this rule.

The Court held that the certification is only a consequence of the requirement of a prior preliminary investigation, and that its absence, like the right itself, may be waived.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the robbery was not proven. There were no eyewitnesses to the taking, none of the stolen items was recovered, and no evidence showed that the assailants knew of the money or intended to rob. The trial court's finding rested on inference and conjecture. The Court laid down the rule that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing is classified as simple homicide or murder, depending on the presence of qualifying circumstances.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the credibility of the two prosecution witnesses. Their identification was positive, no improper motive was shown, and the alleged inconsistencies concerned minor details and collateral matters that do not affect the substance of the testimony. The Court noted that an affidavit, being taken ex parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. As against this positive identification, the alibis of both appellants stood uncorroborated, and the rule is that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses. The killing was therefore murder, qualified by aid of armed men, with Tranquilino credited with the mitigating circumstance of minority.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of the fiscal's certification did not nullify the proceedings. The accused had expressly waived the second stage of the preliminary investigation and never raised the defect before the trial court. The right to a preliminary investigation is a personal right conferred by law and may be waived, and a question not raised below may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

Doctrine

First, in robbery with homicide, the robbery must be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime; absent conclusive proof of the robbery, the killing is homicide or murder, not the complex offense. Second, alibi, being a question of fact, cannot prevail over positive identification by witnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. Third, inconsistencies in a witness's testimony on minor details and collateral matters do not affect veracity or weight, and an ex parte affidavit is generally incomplete. Fourth, the right to a preliminary investigation is a personal right that may be waived, and the absence of the fiscal's certification in the information is not fatal where the right was waived and the issue was not raised before plea.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment, declaring both appellants guilty of murder, sentencing Aquilino Pacala to reclusion perpetua and Tranquilino Pacala, Jr. to ten years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering them to pay the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, 12,000 pesos as civil indemnity, plus costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the robbery in robbery with homicide must be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the reduction of a complex crime when the predicate offense fails, and to test waiver of the right to preliminary investigation.