Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33466-67)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Mamerto Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, Mamerto Narvaez, was tried jointly in Criminal Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato, Branch I, for the killing of Davis Q. Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. In a decision dated September 8, 1970, the trial court convicted Narvaez of murder, finding the crime qualified by treachery with evident premeditation but mitigating voluntary surrender, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and awarded substantial compensatory, moral damages and attorney’s fees to the heirs of the victims.
The factual background involves a long-running land dispute between settlers (including appellant) who migrated to Maitum in 1937 and Fleischer and Company, which asserted ownership by sales application and later award. The settlers lost an earlier action (Civil Case No. 240, 1950) affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1965, culminating in an ouster order in 1966. A separate suit (Civil Case No. 755) by settlers to annul the award remained pending when events leading to the homicide occurred.
Appellant had leased a small portion of Lot No. 38 from the company on February 21, 1967 but had not paid rent; on June 25, 1968, Fleischer notified him the lease was terminated and gave him until December 31, 1968 to remove structures. On August 21–22, 1968, Fleischer, Rubia and laborers began erecting a fence and chiselling the wall of appellant’s house so as to cut off his house and ricemill from highway access. On August 22, 1968 at about 2:30 p.m., awakened by the chiselling, appellant appealed to his compadre Rubia to stop and talk; Fleischer allegedly replied angrily “No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.” Appellant then fired a shotgun from his window, fatally wounding Fleischer and Rubia, and surrendered to police with the weapon.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (the present proceedings), Narvaez argued he acted in defense of his person and in defense of his rights (defense of property). The Court examined the elements of justifying circumstances under Article 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code, the Civil Code provisions on possession and owners’ rights (Arts. 429, 536, 539), and several precedents. The Supreme Court modified the conviction: it found unlawful aggression against appellant’s property but ruled the resistance was disproportionate to that attack so full justification failed; nevertheless, the Court credited privileged incomplete self-defense (Art. 13, par. 6, RPC) plus two generic mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender; passion and obfuscation), discarded treachery and evident premeditation, reclassified the offenses to two counts of homicide, reduced the penalty to arresto mayor (four months), reduced civil indemnities, and ordered appellant’s immediate release in view of long d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s killing of Fleischer and Rubia justified as self-defense of his person or defense of his rights (property) under Article 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code?
- Were the qualifying circumstances of treachery (alevosia) and evident premeditation established?
- What is the correct classification of the offense, the appropriate penalty and civil liability, and is immediate release justified (including ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)