PEOPLE vs NARVAEZ, 121 SCRA 389 (1983) (Makasiar)

FACTS: At about 2:30 PM on August 22, 1968, Davis Fleischer, Flaviano Rubia and
three other men were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of Davis, in
Maitum, South Cotabato. They were also chiseling the house of Mamerto Narvaez,
who was sleeping in his house. Narvaez awoke and asked to talk to Fleischer from
his window.
Fleischer said, No, gademit, proceed, go ahead. Narvaez shot him with a shotgun
from the window, then shot Rubia who was running towards his jeep where a gun
was located. Both died.
Narvaez voluntarily surrendered and claimed defense of his person and of his rights.
The Court of First Instance of South Cotabato convicted him of murder qualified by
treachery with the aggravating circumstance of evident premediation and the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The incident was intertwined with a long legal battle between Narvaez and other
settlers in Cotabato, and Fleischer and Co.
Narvaez had settled in Maitum in 1937. George Fleischer, an American landowner in
Negros Oriental, acquired 300 hectares after the war in a public auction where they
were the only bidders and where settlers protested. After a long legal battle, in 1965,
the Court of First Instance ruled against the settlers. To avoid trouble, Narvaez
voluntarily dismantled the house and store he built in 1947 at a cost of P20,000 and
transferred to another house he built in 1962 or 1963 which was near the highway.
Narvaez also had his rice mill 15 meters away from the house.
Although Narvaez joined in another suit in 1966, he signed a lease with Fleischer and
Co. in 1967. He never paid the monthly rent of P16 but claimed that the milling jobs
he did for Rubia constituted payment. He claimed he signed the lease to avoid
trouble despite the uncertain ownership.
On June 25, 1968, Davis Fleischer sent Narvaez a letter alleging that he had not paid
rent for six months, and gave him six months until December 31, 1968 to remove
his house, ricemill, bodega and water pumps from the land.
Fleischer and Rubia began fencing on August 21, 1968, and this would have shut off
appellant from his house and rice mill from the highway.
Narvaez appealed the decision.
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting the defendant despite the fact that
he was acting in defense of his person and of his rights.
HELD: Yes
RATIO: Defense of ones person or rights is a justifying circumstance, but three
prerequisites must be present.
Unlawful aggression due to the utterance of Fleischer and the invasion of Narvaezs
property was clear. The pending case regarding ownership was decided only over a
year after the incident, and even then, Fleischer had given Narvaez until the end of
the year to leave the land.

Lack of sufficient provocation was clear because Narvaez was asleep in his house,
then asked Fleischer to stop so they could talk.
Firing a shotgun from a window, however, was a disproportionate means of
resistance.
Narvaez was thus guilty of two counts of homicide with the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense under Article 13 of the RPC.
Treachery could not be held because the shooting was not a sudden, unprovoked
attack.
Premeditation could not be held because the only evidence was the statement of one
of Fleischers laborers that he was asked by Narvaez to tell Fleischer that he would
break the latters head. There was no direct evidence or more credible witness.
Moreover, the appellant pleaded with the victims to stop and talk.
Voluntary surrender was present, but so was passion and obfuscation because the
appellant awoke to find his house being damaged and his house and business being
closed off from him. Given the long history of the land dispute, the appellant could
have momentarily lost all reason and reached for his shotgun.
Because of the aggravating reaction of the victim and that the actions were intended
to humiliate the appellant who was married to a municipal councilor and enjoyed
standing in the community, civil liability must be modified. The appellant also
deserves leniency as his family never had sufficient means to fight the land
accumulation of Fleischer and Co. despite its already extensive holdings in Central
Visayas.
Article 249 of the RPC punishes homicide with reclusion temporal. This is lowered by
two degrees because of incomplete defense, and one degree because of the two
mitigating circumstances and lack of aggravating circumstances.
The sentence was modified to four months of arresto mayor, indemnity of 4,000
pesos for each group of the heirs of Fleischer and Rubia, no subsidiary imprisonment,
and no award for moral damages and attorneys fees.
Because Narvaez had been imprisoned for 14 years, he was ordered immediately
released.
Decision modified.
(dissent) Abad Santos: Self-defense in the penal code refers to unlawful aggression
on persons and not property.
(dissent): Gutierrez, Jr.: Appellant defended from an attack on his property that was
not coupled with an attack on his person. There should be no special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense. The sentence should have been modified to
prision mayor and the defendant should have been ordered released immediately.