PEOPLE VS NARVAEZ

People vs Narvaez
Facts:
-One afternoon, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez together with the two deceased
Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of
deceased Davis Fleischer.
- The place where they were fencing was located in the house and ricemill of appellant narvaez.
- Appellant woke up from the noise of chiseling and noticed that if the fencing would go on, he
would be prevented from going into his house.
- So he tried to talk about it with the group. However, Davis Fleischer ignored him and just
proceeded with the work.
- Insulted, appellant took his gun and shot Davis Fleischer, then he saw Rubia running towards
the jeep, which he knew that there is a gun in the jeep, he also shot Rubia. The two died as a
result of the shooting.

-However, prior to the shooting, the company of Fleischer’s family was involved in a legal
battle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over cerain pieces of property.
- AT the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment, where settlers
wanted to annul the granting of the property to the company.
- Also ate the time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property from Fleisher although
the ownership was still pending, to avoid trouble.
- Defendant received a letter terminating contract because he allegedly did not pay rent. So he
was given 6 months to remove his house .
- However, the shooting occurred just 2 months after he received the letter where the company
was trying to terminate his fence already.
- Defendant claims that he was acting in defense of his person and property.

ISSUE: W/N THE APPELLANT COULD AVAIL THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.
W/N THE APPELLANT COULD BE CREDITED WITH THE SPECIAL MITIGATING
CICUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF DEFENSE.

RULING:
1.) No.
The SC ruled by invoking first the requisites of defense of one’s person or rights under Art. 11
of the RPC:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

These 3 requisites must be present in order to invoke this justifying circumstance.

In the present case, there was an aggression on the part of the victims. Fleischer was ordering
the fencing while Rubia was participating the fencing. This was indeed an aggression, not on
the person of appellant, but on his property rights. This aggression was considered as unlawful
aggression because there was an assault on appellant’s property, there is a physical invasion
which he needs to resist wherein the company is not allowed to claim because the granting
property is still pending.
The Second element, the reasonable resistance, however, in the case his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack.

The last element was present, because he was just asleep when the aggression occurred.
Thus, the appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements
for justification are present. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of his
victims.

2.) Yes. He could still be credited with such mitigating circumstance.

The Supreme Court held that although the appellant's act in killing the deceased was not
justifiable because of the absence of the 2nd element of justifying circumstance in defense of
property, which is, reasonable necessity of the means employed, since his firing of shotgun
from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack, he
should still be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense,
pursuant to paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code because the the first requisite
was present which was unlawful aggression (when the accused , and the 3rd requisite was also
present the lack of provocation on the part of the accused.

More so, the SC held that the trial court has properly appreciated the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, appearing that appellant surrendered to the authorities
soon after the shooting. Moreover, the SC also found that passion and obfuscation attended
the commission of the crime. The circumstances that the victims were destroying the
appellant’s fences and not allowing him to access to the highway as well as of his rice mill
bodega being closed, must have so aggravated his obfuscation that he lost momentarily all
reason causing him to reach for his shotgun and fire at the victims in defense of his rights.

Thus, the appellant is guilty of two counts of homicide. However, with the presence of
privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense and two generic mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation and without any qualifying
nor aggravating circumstance, the appellant will only be sentenced to suffer an imprisonment
of four (4) months of Arresto Mayor.

Note: I included the 2 other mitigating circumstance so that we will be able to know the
imposed penalty (included in maam’s discussion). Just in case maam would ask.