PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ • People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee • Mamerto Narvaez - defendent-appellant Date: April 20, 1983 Date: G.R. NOS NOS.. L-33466-67 (121 SCRA 389) Ponente:: Makasiar, J. Ponente Court Deciding: Deciding: En Banc Relief : Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder Doctrine: Justifying Circumstances - Unlawful Aggression against property rights: Defense of property Doctrine: can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. *It must be noted that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. *Also, the party should have been the subject of a real and imminent threat, which represents the unlawful aggression made upon him. There must also be reasonableness in his use of a knife or any other weapon as his means to defend himself. And finally, there should be no provocation on his part that caused his aggressor to harm him. Fast Facts Facts:: Narvaez was formerly convicted of murder for the death of Fleischer and Rubia. Defendant claimed that he shot the two as an act of self-defense as a means to protect himself and his property therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. The two were building a fence around his property and asked them to stop but did not and was thereby provoked by Fleischer ’s unlawful aggression. While the two requirements for invoking self-defense was present (unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself), Narvaez’s act was considered as an incomplete self-defense because it lacked reasonable necessity of the means employed. The crime committed is now homicide and his sentence was lowered but because he has been under detention longer than the prescribed period of his imprisonment for said new crime, the court ordered for his immediate release. Normal Facts: Facts: • Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder for the death of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. • On Aug. 22, 1968, Narvaez was taking a nap in the afternoon when he heard sounds of construction and found a fence being made. Fleischer and Rubia were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. Defendant addressed the group and asked them to stop and talk things over. Fleischer responded with, “No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead. ” Narvaez lost his equilibrium and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep where a gun was available but Nar vaez shot him before reaching such. • It is said that the incident is intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between Fleischer and Co., Inc. and the land settlers of Cotobato among whom was Narvaez. At the time of the
•
shooting, the civil case between the parties was still pending for annulment where the settlers wanted granting of property to Fleischer to be annulled. At the time of the shooting, Narvaez had leased his property from Fleischer to avoid conflict. On June 25, Narvaez received a letter terminating the contract because he has not paid rent for six months to the company. He was given 6 months to remove his house, ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps. The shooting happened barely 2 months after the letter. Narvaez claimed that he acted in defense of his person and property but the CFI of Cotabato ruled that he was guilty of murder. He was originally sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages.
Issues: WON the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder despite the fact the he acted in defense of his person and rights. Held: YES Ratio: Narvaez admitted having shot the two deceased but did so in defense of his person and of his property however, he cannot be exempted from criminal liability because the argument of the justifying circumstance of self- defense is applicable only if the 3 requisites are present (unla wful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself). Although there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victims towards Narvaez’s property rights and lack (or absence even) of provocation since appellant was resting, it was not a reasonable necessity for him to kill the two. Since not all requisites were present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Also, there was no direct evidence of planning or preparing to kill. The crime committed was homicide and the penalty for such is reclusion temporal but due to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation and incomplete self-defense, penalty was lowered to arresto mayor. Appellant has been under detention for almost 14 years thus his immediate release was ordered by the Court. Dissenting opinions: • Abad Santos, J. - The self- defense of the RPC refers to unlawful aggression on persons, not pr operty. • Gutierrez, JR., J. - Agrees with the order to release appellant but believes that the mere utterance of “No, gademit, proceed, go ahead” is not the unlawful aggression which entitles appellant to the plea of self-defense. Crime is only homicide but should be without any privileged mitigating circumstance.
