People V Ricohermoso

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v.
Pio Ricohermoso, Severo Padernal, Juan Padernal,

Rosendo Perpeñan, Macario Monterey and Rito Monterey, defendants,
Juan Padrenal and Severo Padernal, defendants-appellants
G.R. Nos. L-30527-28 – March 29, 1974
Second Division
Ponente: Aquino, J.
Article/s invoked
Par. 4., Art. 11, RPC. Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Par. 16, Art. 14., RPC. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
Case Summary
Germiniano owned a parcel of land where Ricohermoso cultivated kaingin. The former asked the latter if he
could have some palay. Ricohermoso said that he could drop by his house for palay, any time. When
Germiniano came for some palay, he was stabbed in the neck with a bolo by Ricohermoso, and hacked at the
back with an axe by Severo. Meanwhile Germinian’s son Marianito who accompanied him was grappled to
topple downhill by Juan. Juan invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury but
the Court ruled that he was not, for he conspired in the treachery.
FACTS OF THE CASE

 January 30, 1965 – at 9:00 AM, Geminiano de Leon with his common-law wife Fabiana Rosales, son
Marianito de Leon, and one Rizal Rosales encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan
Silañangan.
o Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest since the latter
cultivated such as kaingin.
o Ricohermoso said that Germinano could go to his house for some palay, anytime.
 Upon return to the Barrio, Germiniano stopped at Ricohermoso’s place at about 2:00 PM with
Marianito who had a .22 caliber rifle slung on his shoulder. Ricohermoso told the former that he would
not give palay, whatever happens.
o Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo from the left while Severo Padernal (his father-in-law) got
an axe and approached Ricohermoso from the right.
o Geminiano pleaded but was still stabbed by Ricohermoso on the neck. When he fell
facedown, he was hacked on the back with an axe by Severo Padernal.
o At the same time, Juan Padernal (brother-in-law of Ricohermoso and son of Severo) suddenly
embraced Marianito from behind. They grappled and rolled downhill to a camote patch.
Marianito passed out.
 When he regained consciousness, he saw Geminiano mortally wounded and carried him for a short
distance. Germiniano died at 2:00 the same day.
 Appellants’ version: That afternoon, when Ricohermoso refused to give any palay since the land was
allegedly public, Geminiano approached Ricohermoso. When Geminiano unsheathed his bolo,
Ricohermoso met him, drew his bolo, and struck Geminiano. As Geminiano turned right to flee,
Ricohermoso struck him again. Meanwhile, Mariano tried to shoot but Juan disabled him and wrested
the gun.
 February 6, 1970 – the appellants filed their brief.
o Severo Padernal later withdrew his appeal and such withdrawal was granted.
o Juan invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury (par. 4,
Art. 11, RPC) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito from shooting.
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
W/N Juan Padernal conspired with Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal to kill Geminiano de Leon.
YES. There was conspiracy by stating that their conduct revealed unity of purpose and concerted effort to
encompass Geminiano’s death.
 Considering the trio’s behavior and Juan’s close relationship with the two others, they must have acted
in conspiracy. He coordinated and timed his seizure of Marianito.
W/N Juan can invoke the justifying circumstance for avoidance of a greater evil or injury.
NO. Juan’s reliance on the justifying circumstance is erroneous.
 The act he did was designed to insure killing of Geminiano without any risk to assailants, not
envisaged in par. 4 of art. 11. of the RPC.
 Juan’s role of weakening the defense by disabling Marianito was part of the means of execution
to ensure the assassination of Geminiano without any risk to themselves. (Par. 16, Art. 14., RPC)
o There was treachery as Germiniano’s hands were raised and was pleading for mercy.
Geminiano did not expect that Ricohermoso would renege on his promise for palay and be
bellicose instead.
RULING
The judgment of the lower court as to appellant Juan Padernal is affirmed with costs against him.
SEPARATE OPINION/S
NOTES

People V Ricohermoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Ricohermoso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Ricohermoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v.

Pio Ricohermoso, Severo Padernal, Juan Padernal,

FACTS OF THE CASE

You might also like