SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-30527-28. March 29, 1974.]

PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee, vs. PIO

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RICOHERMOSO, SEVERO PADERNAL, JUAN PADERNAL, ROSENDO
MONTEREY defendants,
PERPEÑAN, MACARIO MONTEREY and RITO MONTEREY,
PADERNAL defendants-appellants.
JUAN PADERNAL and SEVERO PADERNAL,

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres

and Trial Attorney Lolita C . Dumlao for plaintiff-appellee.
Rogerio S. T . Cadag for defendants-appellants.

DECISION

AQUINO , J : p

Severo Padernal and Juan Padernal appealed from the decision of the Circuit
Criminal Court at Lucena City, convicting them of murder, sentencing each of them to
reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay solidarily the sum of twelve thousand
pesos to the heirs of Geminiano de Leon and to pay the costs (Criminal Case No. CCC-
IX-37-Quezon or 1922-CFI-Gumaca).
In the same decision they were convicted of lesiones leves. Each one was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of fteen (15 days of arresto menor and to pay the
costs. Rosendo Perpeñan, Rito Monterey and Macario Monterey were acquitted
(Criminal Case No. CCC-IX-38-Quezon or 1923-CFI-Gumaca).
The facts disclosed in the prosecution's evidence, on which the judgment of
conviction was based, are as follows:
At about nine o'clock in the morning of January 30, 1965 Geminiano de Leon,
together with his thirty-three-year old common-law wife Fabiana Rosales, his twenty-
four-year old son Marianito de Leon and one Rizal Rosales, encountered Pio
Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan Silañgan, Catanauan, Quezon.
Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso cultivated as
kaingin. Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest. He added
that he should at least be allowed to taste the palay harvested from his land.
Ricohermoso answered that Geminiano could go to his house anytime and he would
give the latter palay. Geminiano rejoined that he could not get the palay that morning
because he was on his way to Barrio Bagobasin but, on his return, he would stop at
Ricohermoso's house and get the palay.
When Geminiano returned to Barrio Tagbacan Silañgan, he stopped at
Ricohermoso's place. It was about two o'clock in the afternoon. I Geminiano sat on a
sack beside Fabiana Rosales in front of the house while Marianito stood about three
meters behind his father. A .22 caliber ri e was slung on Marianito's right shoulder.
Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house while Severo Padernal was stationed
near the eaves of the house.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay. The latter, no longer conciliatory
and evidently hostile, answered in a de ant tone: "Whatever happens, I will not give you
palay." Geminiano remonstrated: "Why did you tell us to pass by your house, if you were
not willing to give the palay?"
At that juncture, as if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and
approached Geminiano from the left, while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-in-
law) got an axe and approached Geminiano from the right. The latter looked up to the
sexagenarian Severo Padernal, with both hands raised and pleaded: "Mamay (Grandpa),
why will you do this to us. We will not ght you." While Geminiano was still looking up to
Severo Padernal on his right, Ricohermoso walked to Geminiano's left, and, when about
one meter from him, stabbed him on the neck with his bolo. Geminiano fell face
downward on the ground. While in that helpless position, he was hacked on the back
with an axe by Severo Padernal.
At that same place and time, while Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso were
assaulting Geminiano de Leon, another episode was taking place. Juan Padernal
(Ricohermoso's brother-in-law and the son of Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito de
Leon from behind, with his right arm locked around Marianito's neck and his left hand
pressing Marianito's left forearm. They grappled and rolled downhill towards a camote
patch. Marianito passed out. When he regained consciousness, his ri e was gone. He
walked uphill, saw his mortally wounded father Geminiano in his death throes, and
embraced him. He carried Geminiano for a short distance. The fty-one year old
Geminiano died at two o'clock on that same day.
Doctor Isabela A. Matundan certi ed that Geminiano de Leon sustained the
following wounds:
"1. Wound, incised, neck, lateral aspect, left, cutting the carotid artery
and jugular vein, 4 inches in length crosswise with fracture of the cervical
vertebra.

2. Wound, incised, back, lumbar region, left, 4 1/2 inches, directed

anteriorly, 3 inches deep.

3. Wound, incised, waist, dorsal, 1 1/2 inches, skin only.

4. Hematoma, forearm, upper third, left." (Exh. B)

Doctor Matundan said that the rst wound was fatal. It could have caused
instantaneous death because it was a deep wound which pierced the carotid artery and
jugular vein (Exh. C). The second wound on the back could likewise have caused the
victim's death if it had penetrated the kidney.
Doctor Matundan found that Marianito de Leon sustained multiple abrasions on
the neck and abdomen and a lacerated wound on the left foot which would heal from
one to nine days even without medical treatment.
Appellants' version is that in the afternoon of January 30, 1965, when
Ricohermoso refused to give any palay to Geminiano de Leon, because the land tilled by
the former was allegedly a public land, Geminiano approached Ricohermoso. When
Geminiano unsheathed his bolo, Ricohermoso met him, drew his bolo and struck
Geminiano on the left side of the neck. The latter tried to parry the blow. He was
wounded in the wrist. As Geminiano turned right to ee, Ricohermoso struck him again
on the left side of his body, causing him to fall on the ground. Geminiano died on the
spot due to the bleeding from the wound on his neck.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 While Geminiano was being assaulted, his son Marianito tried to shoot with his
ri e but Juan Padernal disabled him and wrested the gun. Marianito suffered abrasions
on the neck and other parts of the body (Pages 1 to 3, appellants' brief).
It is manifest that the defendants fashioned their version in such a way as to shift
the responsibility for the killing to Ricohermoso, a fugitive from justice who has not
been tried. They also tried to exculpate Severo Padernal and to prove that Ricohermoso
acted in self-defense.
The appellants led their brief on February 6, 1970. Later, Severo Padernal
withdrew his appeal. The withdrawal was granted in the resolution dated November 3,
1970 (Page 206, Rollo). That withdrawal strengthened the case for the prosecution or
the appellee and rendered inoperative appellants' version of the case. Severo Padernal
in effect accepted as correct the prosecution's version of the tragic incident and the
trial court's nding that he conspired with Ricohermoso and his son, Juan, to kill
Geminiano de Leon.
The only issue in this appeal, which concerns Juan Padernal, is whether he
conspired with Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal to kill Geminiano de Leon.
The trial court rationalized its conclusion that there was conspiracy by stating
that their conduct revealed unity of purpose and a concerted effort to encompass
Geminiano's death.
Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a
greater evil or injury (par. 4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of
preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. His
reliance on that justifying circumstance is erroneous. The act of Juan Padernal in
preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who
were the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without
any risk to his assailants.
Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
Padernal's malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious assault
made by his father and brother-in-law on Geminiano. That situation is unarguably not
the case envisaged in paragraph 4 of article 11.
Juan Padernal contends that he was not a co-principal because he did not take
any direct part in the killing of Geminiano, that he did not force or induce Ricohermoso
to stab Geminiano and that he allegedly did not cooperate in its commission. That
contention is not well-taken.
It should be recalled that, in the morning, Geminiano had an understanding with
Ricohermoso that he (Geminiano) would return in the afternoon to get his share of the
palay harvest. Ricohermoso gave Geminiano the impression that he (Ricohermoso) was
amenable to giving Geminiano his share of the harvest. However, during the interval,
Ricohermoso changed his mind. Instead of remaining steadfast to his original intention
to give Geminiano palay, Ricohermoso planned with his father-in-law, Severo Padernal,
and his brother-in-law, appellant Juan Padernal, the manner of liquidating Geminiano so
as to stop him from pestering Ricohermoso with demands for a share in the harvest.
So, when Geminiano reappeared at Ricohermoso's place in the afternoon, Severo
Padernal, Ricohermoso Juan Padernal, like actors in a well-rehearsed play, performed
their assigned roles with dramatic precision. Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso, one
armed with an axe and the other with a bolo, in a pincer movement, confronted
Geminiano de Leon. Simultaneously with that maneuver, the thirty- ve-year old Juan
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Padernal embraced Marianito de Leon and prevented him from ring at Severo
Padernal and Ricohermoso or from helping his father.
Considering the trio's behavior and appellant Juan Padernal's close relationship
to Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, the ineluctable conclusion is that he acted in
conspiracy with them. He coordinated and timed his seizure of Marianito with the
assault of Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal on Geminiano. It is doubtful if the
assailants could have consummated the killing of Geminiano, without their suffering
any injury, if Marianito had not been rendered helpless by appellant Juan Padernal.
The circumstances surrounding the killing of Geminiano de Leon alevosia or
treachery. His hands were raised and he was pleading for mercy with Severo Padernal,
when Ricohermoso struck him on the neck with a bolo. The fact that an exchange of
words preceded the assault would not negate the treacherous character of the attack.
Geminiano did not expect that Ricohermoso would renege on his promise to give him
palay and that he would adopt a bellicose attitude. Juan Padernal's role of weakening
the defense, by disabling Marianito de Leon, was part and parcel of the means of
execution deliberately resorted to by the assailants to insure the assassination of
Geminiano de Leon without any risk to themselves (Par. 16, Article 14, Revised Penal
Code).
Treachery was appreciated in a case where the accused red at the victim who,
with hands upraised, pleaded in a loud voice: "Do not shoot me; investigate rst what
was my fault" (People vs. Barba, 97 Phil. 991. See People vs. Dagundong, 108 Phil. 682,
684, 693).
As to the other case, L-30528, the charge against the appellants was attempted
murder with respect to Marianito de Leon. The trial court convicted them lesiones
leves. The case was included in this appeal apparently pursuant to the provision in
section 17(1) of the Judiciary Law that a case arising out of the same occurrence, as
that in which reclusion perpetua was imposed, is appealable to this Court.
Inasmuch as Juan Padernal did not touch upon the lesiones leves case in his
brief, he, like his father Severo, seems to have acquiesced in the correctness of the trial
court's decision.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court as to appellant Juan Padernal is
affirmed with costs against him.
SO ORDERED.
Zaldivar (Chairman), Fernando, Barredo and Fernandez, JJ., concur.
Antonio, J., did not take part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com