University of the Philippines College of Law

KJRPM D2022

Case Name PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant
Topic Prospective Application of Criminal Law
Case No. | Date G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 | April 20, 1983
Ponente Makasiar, J.
● August 22, 1968, appellant was awoken by the fencing of the victims.
● They had altercations when appellant refused to listen to reason and continued the fencing.
● Appellant reached for his shot gun and shot Fleischer.
● Rubia then ran to a nearby car. Appellant shot him as well, knowing that there was a gun in
Case Summary
that car.
● The court ruled that the case is homicide and that it was with mitigating circumstances.
● RA 5465, which was favorable to the accused was also seen as may be retrospectively
applied.
● Considering that Republic Act 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
Doctrine delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code.

RELEVANT FACTS

● This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal Cases
Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder which, after a joint trial, resulted in the conviction of the accused in a decision
rendered on September 8, 1970.
● Thus, we have a crime of MURDER qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
● The penalty was reclusion perpetua.
FACTS OF THE CRIME
● At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, 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.
● At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled,
he arose and there he saw the fencing going on.
● With the fencing, appellant would be prevented access to his house and bodega.
● They got into an altercation when the two deceased refused to stop the fencing and here Narvaez out.
● Losing his equilibrium, Narvaez got his gun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran to a car and Narvaez, knowing that
there is a gun in that car, also shot Rubia. Both dies as a result of the shooting.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
● Appellant was among those persons from Northern and Central Luzon who went to Mindanao in 1937 and
settled in Maitum, a former sitio of Kiamba.
● Shortly thereafter, Fleischer and Company, headed by George W. Fleischer, an American landowner in Negros
Oriental, filed sales application No. 21983 on June 3, 1937 over the same area formerly leased and later
abandoned by Celebes Plantation Company, covering 1,017.2234 hectares.
● According to a survey done, only 300 hectares Identified as Lots Nos. 22, 26 and 38, Ps. 176 Kiamba, were set
aside for Sales Application No. 21983, while the rest were subdivided into sublots of 5 to 6 hectares each to be
distributed among the settlers.
● The 300 hectares set aside was declared open for disposition upon which only Fleischer and Company was the
only bidder.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
● Settlers then filed Civil Case No. 240 for the purpose of annulling the order of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources which affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the contested land to the
company.
● CFI favored the company.
● They then filed a petition for injunction. During the pendency of the case, appellant entered into a contract of
lease with the company.
● He signed the contract although the ownership of the land was still uncertain. Furthermore, he has not paid rent
on the land as well.
● Appellant now questions the propriety of his conviction:
o First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact
that he acted in defense of his person; and
o Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo also erred in convicting defendant-appellant although
he acted in defense of his rights

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the Court erred ● YES
in convicting the ● Article 11 of the RPC states the circumstances of self-defense
defendant appellant o Conformably to Article 536 and 539 of the Civil Code, the deceased had no
although he acted in right to destroy or cause damage to appellant's house, nor to close his
defense of his rights accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and
talk things over with him. The assault on appellant's property, therefore,
amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law.
o Such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. . When
the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his
resistance was disproportionate to the attack.
o Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of appellant who was defending
his property. As a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all on his part,
since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced
by the victims and their laborers.
● Since in the case at bar, there was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation
to kill the victims nor that the accused premeditated the killing, and clung to his
premeditated act, the trial court's conclusion as to the presence of such
circumstance may not be endorsed
● Consequently, appellant is guilty of two crimes of homicide only.
W/N the appellant ● Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for homicide as
should be held liable reclusion temporal. Pursuant to Article 69, supra, the penalty lower by one or two
for subsidiary degrees shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of
imprisonment since some of the conditions required to justify the same.
he is unable to pay ● Furthermore, Article 39 of the RPC requires a person convicted of prision
civil indemnity due to correccional or arrests mayor and fine who has no property with which to meet his
the offended party. civil liabilities to serve a subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one (1) day for each P
2.50. However, the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 5465 on April 21,
1969 made the provision only applicable to fines only to fines. Considering that such
RA is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent, it may be given
retroactive effect pursuant to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022

RULING

WHEREFORE, FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ONLY TWO (2) HOMICIDES, MITIGATED
BY THE PRIVILEGED EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AS WELL AS BY TWO (2) GENERIC
MITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND OBFUSCATION, WITHOUT AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, APPELLANT IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF
ARRESTO MAYOR, TO INDEMNIFY EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER AND OF FLAVIANO RUBIA IN THE
SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND (P 4,000.00) PESOS, WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY AWARD
FOR MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.

CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR ALMOST FOURTEEN (14) YEARS NOW SINCE HIS
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER ON AUGUST 22, 1968, HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED. NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

ABAD SANTOS, J. Dissent

I dissent. The self-defense of the Revised Penal Code refers to unlawful aggression on persons, not property.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
● It seems to me, however, that an attack on the person defending his property is an indispensable element
where an accused pleads self-defense but what is basically defended is only property.
● The mere utterance made by the appellee is not unlawful aggression.
● Disagree that with privileged mitigating circumstances.

NOTES