G.R. No. L-26647 August 15, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AQUILINO PACALA and TRANQUILINO PACALA, JR., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of November 17, 1964, Jose Bacsal and his son Roque were in their hut in Sitio Binotong, Samar. Five armed men—the Pacala brothers and their uncle, Cipriano Saberon—surrounded the hut. Upon Saberon firing a pistol, Jose and Roque jumped and fled. Roque hid but witnessed the attack: Saberon held his father, Patricio Pacala stabbed him, and Francisco Pacala slashed him. Appellants Aquilino Pacala (armed with a firearm) and Tranquilino Pacala, Jr. (armed with a bolo) were present and participated in surrounding the victim. Following Saberon’s order to “Finish him,” Tranquilino repeatedly boloed the prostrate Jose on the forehead, causing his death. The assailants then left, and Roque later discovered that a transistor radio and a trunk containing P1,700.00 were missing from the hut.
The prosecution presented testimonies from Roque Bacsal, the barrio captain Victoriano Fortaleza (who heard the victim name his attackers before dying), and Modesto Leyson (a fisherman who saw the appellants and their companions heading toward the scene). The defense of alibi was rejected by the trial court, which found the appellants guilty of Robbery with Homicide and imposed the death penalty on Aquilino and reclusion perpetua on Tranquilino, Jr., prompting automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the crime committed was Robbery with Homicide or Murder, and whether the appellants’ constitutional right to preliminary investigation was violated.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Robbery with Homicide to Murder. The legal logic is that for Robbery with Homicide, the robbery itself must be proven as the main purpose, with the killing incidental to or in furtherance of the robbery. Here, the evidence established a premeditated intent to kill Jose Bacsal, motivated by a previous land dispute, not by robbery. The taking of cash and property was merely an afterthought, occurring after the homicide was completed. This sequence of events—killing first, taking property later—does not constitute the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Instead, the killing, attended by treachery (the sudden attack by a group surrounding the hut) and evident premeditation, qualifies as Murder under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the appellants waived their right to question the absence of a certification for preliminary investigation. They had expressly waived preliminary investigation in the trial court and never raised the issue during proceedings below. A right to preliminary investigation is personal and can be waived; failure to assert it before plea precludes raising it for the first time on appeal. Consequently, Aquilino Pacala’s sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and Tranquilino Pacala, Jr.’s sentence was adjusted to an indeterminate penalty.