The killing of teacher Jhun Leo Pañares

He was a promising and respected teacher, a responsible son. That’s how Jhun Leo Pañares, a public school teacher in Naga City, who was brutally stabbed to death on October 16, 2022, was viewed by those who knew him. His students and those who love him cry for justice.

The suspect, Elmar Gemida, 24, has been arrested. He claimed he did it in self-defense.

It is said that dead men tell no tales. Therefore, it is only proper to evaluate the suspect’s claim based on available evidence.

In my interview with the suspect over my program Straight to the Point in dyHP RMN Cebu, he admitted to having a relationship with the teacher. Both even have sweet chat message exchanges.

He alleged that the victim tried to touch him. When he declined, the former got an instrument from a drawer. Anticipating an attempt on his life, he stabbed the victim to death.

If the two had a relationship, why would a touch provoke him? That’s the question.

Now, let’s go to his claim of self-defense. Based on the Revised Penal Code, for self-defense to be invoked, the following circumstances must occur: First, that there must be unlawful aggression; second, there must be a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and third, there must be a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

On the first element, we cannot find unlawful aggression. That the victim allegedly touched his private parts can be said to be, at the very least, a matter of mutual consent as they were lovers. He admitted during the interview that they were lovers. They had an intimate relationship, and he accepted monetary support from the victim.

His claim that the teacher tried to get a knife after being refused or declined is hard to believe. We were not born yesterday not to know what lovers, regardless of gender, do. They were inside the room, not as strangers.

It is also unlikely for the gay teacher to be the first to get a knife simply because he was refused.

On the second element, consider the fact that Gemida did not incur significant injuries, while the deceased sustained nine fatal stab wounds.

Granting arguendo that the gay teacher was the one who got the knife and attacked him, the moment he disarmed the latter, as he claimed in my live interview, the unlawful aggression at that juncture --the disarming-- already ceased to exist. So why did he kill the victim? Why did he inflict nine fatal stab wounds?

The third element is also not present. Given the foregoing, one may conclude that a robbery with homicide happened. It was well-planned. Gemida also claimed that after the incident, he got rattled. But netizens are correct to point out that a rattled man has no time to bring with him the cell phone, cash, and motorcycle belonging to the victim. He even washed his bloody t-shirt after the killing.

Moreover, flight is a sign of guilt. The suspect did precisely that after he killed the teacher; he fled. If not for the quick action of the police force, he would not have been arrested.

Gemida must be made to answer for his brutal act. He deserves to face the complex crime of robbery with homicide for the heinous incident he authored.