Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33466-67)
Factual Background
On August 22, 1968 at about 2:30 PM, appellant was resting in his house when he was awakened by sounds of chiselling against his wall. Outside, deceased Fleischer and Rubia, with three laborers, were erecting a bamboo-and-barbed-wire fence that cut across appellant’s concrete grain drier and threatened to block ingress to his house and rice mill. Appellant requested that they stop and “talk it over,” but Fleischer responded angrily, ordering his men to proceed. Appellant retrieved his shotgun and fired through the window, fatally wounding both Fleischer and Rubia. He then surrendered to police with the weapon.
Antecedent Land Dispute
In 1937, settlers—including appellant—petitioned President Quezon to subdivide the defunct Celebes Plantation for distribution. Fleischer & Co. filed Sales Application No. 21983 over the same area. A 1941 survey set aside 300 ha for the company and subdivided the rest among settlers. Despite an auction in 1948 and subsequent administrative and judicial proceedings (CI Case No. 240, CA-G.R. No. 28858-R; G.R. No. L-26757), the company prevailed, leading to the September 1966 ejectment of settlers, including Narvaez.
Procedural History
– September 8, 1970: Court of First Instance convicts Narvaez of two counts of murder, imposing reclusion perpetua and civil indemnities (P12,000 compensatory, P10,000 moral, P2,000 attorney’s fees per count).
– Appeal to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67).
– April 20, 1983: En banc Decision under the pre-1987 legal framework.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether appellant acted in defense of his person (self-defense under Art. 11(1), RPC).
- Whether appellant acted in defense of his rights (defense of property under Art. 11(1), RPC, and Art. 429, Civil Code).
Applicable Law
– Revised Penal Code (RPC) of 1930:
• Art. 11(1): Justifying circumstances (defense of person or rights) – requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, lack of provocation.
• Art. 249: Homicide penalty.
• Art. 13(6): Incomplete self-defense (special mitigating).
• Art. 64(5): Generic mitigating circumstances.
• Art. 69: Penalty reduction by degrees.
– Civil Code of 1950:
• Art. 429: Right to repel unlawful physical invasion of property.
• Arts. 536 and 539: Prohibition against forceful dispossession, right to judicial remedy.
Analysis on Self-Defense and Defense of Property
Unlawful aggression was present: the fencing operation involved chiselling appellant’s house, use of potentially lethal tools, and erection of barricades obstructing access. Under Arts. 536 and 539, the victims had no right to damage appellant’s property mid-litigation. Art. 429 permits use of reasonably necessary force to repel an unlawful physical invasion. Appellant’s plea to cease and confer went unheeded. Although his use of a firearm was disproportionate (excessive force), the third element for self-defense (lack of provocation) is satisfied, and his resistance arose from a genuine belief that his rights were under immediate threat. Accordingly, incomplete self-defense applies as a special mitigating circumstance.
Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances
– Treachery excluded: the attack was not sudden and unprovoked on the victims’ part; rather, it was in reaction to property aggression.
– Alevosia (treachery) and premeditation not established: only one report of threats two days prior, insufficient for direct evidence of deliberate planning. No notorious outward acts showing a cool reflection before the shooting.
Mitigating Circumstances
- Privileged extenuation – incomplete self-defense (RPC, Art. 11
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33466-67)
Facts of the Incident
- On August 22, 1968 at about 2:30 p.m., Mamerto Narvaez was resting in his highway‐front house and adjacent rice mill in Maitum, South Cotabato.
- Deceased Davis Q. Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, assisted by three laborers, commenced fencing Lot 38 of Fleischers & Co., Inc., erecting bamboo posts, chiselling the walls of Narvaez’s ground‐floor rice-drier and house, and installing barbed wire.
- Appellant awoke to the noise of chiselling, looked through his window and saw his entrance and mill access being sealed off by the fence.
- He addressed Rubia (his compadre), pleading “Pare, hinto mona ninyo at pag-usapan natin kung ano ang mabuti,” but Fleischer responded angrily, “Hindi, sigue, gademit, avante,” ordering the work to continue.
- Narvaez, claiming his property was under unlawful aggression, retrieved a shotgun from his bed, fired at Fleischer as he fell, then fired a second shot at Rubia as he ran toward the jeep, believing Rubia sought the weapon therein.
- Both victims died from their gunshot wounds. Narvaez immediately surrendered to the police, bringing the shotgun.
Antecedent Land Dispute and Occupancy
- In 1937 Narvaez joined other Luzon settlers in petitioning President Quezon for subdivision of the defunct Celebes and Kalaong Plantations in Maitum.
- Fleischer & Co. filed Sales Application No. 21983 over the same lands. A 1941 survey (submitted 1946) allotted 300 ha to that application, with the remainder distributed to settlers.
- At a Manila auction on August 14, 1948, Fleischer & Co. alone bid for P6,000, but settlers’ protests delayed formal award; an investigator brokered an “amicable settlement” later repudiated by settlers.
- Administrative awards to Fleischer & Co. withstood rejection by settlers, and Civil Case No. 240 (C.F.I. Cotabato, 1950) and its CA appeal (G.R. No. 28858-R, 1965) upheld the company’s title, resulting in the ejection of settlers by C.F.I. order dated September 24, 1966.
- Narvaez dismantled his original 1947 house, moved into a 1962/63 house near the highway, operated a store and rice mill there, and, in Civil Case No. 755 (filed November 14, 1966), sought annulment of the award.
- On February 21, 1967 he executed a lease of approximately 100–140 m² of Lot 38 from Fleischer & Co. for P16.00 monthly, paying n