Primary Holding

Narvaez is guilty of two counts of homicide, not murder, due to incomplete self-defense and mitigating circumstances. His sentence is reduced to four months of arresto mayor, and he is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased with a reduced amount of damages, leading to his immediate release given his lengthy pre-trial detention.

Background

Narvaez, a settler in South Cotabato, was embroiled in a land dispute with Fleischer and Company. He had been leasing a portion of the land in contention, but the company sought to remove him and other settlers. The deceased victims, Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were secretary-treasurer and assistant manager of Fleischer & Co. respectively, and were fencing the land when Narvaez shot them.

Facts

• 1. Narvaez was a settler in Maitum, South Cotabato, and was in a land dispute with Fleischer and Company.
• 2. Fleischer and Rubia, along with laborers, were fencing Lot 38, where Narvaez's house and ricemill were located.
• 3. The fencing was obstructing access to Narvaez's property from the highway and was damaging the wall of his house.
• 4. Narvaez asked them to stop to talk, but Fleischer refused and told them to proceed.
• 5. Narvaez, feeling threatened and provoked, took his shotgun and shot Fleischer and then Rubia.
• 6. Narvaez surrendered to the police with his shotgun.
• 7. Prior to the shooting, there was a long-standing legal battle regarding the land ownership between Fleischer & Co. and the settlers, including Narvaez.
• 8. Narvaez had been leasing the land temporarily to avoid trouble while the land dispute was ongoing.
• 9. Fleischer & Co. had given Narvaez notice to vacate by December 31, 1968.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. N/A (People of the Philippines is the Plaintiff-Appellee)

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Narvaez acted in self-defense and defense of his rights and property.
• 2. The deceased's actions of fencing his property and damaging his house constituted unlawful aggression.
• 3. He should be exempt from criminal liability or at least be given a lighter sentence.

Issues

• 1. Was there unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased?
• 2. Was there reasonable necessity of the means employed by Narvaez to repel the aggression?
• 3. Was there sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez?
• 4. Was the crime murder or homicide?
• 5. Were there mitigating circumstances present?
• 6. What is the proper penalty and civil liability?

Ruling

• 1. Unlawful aggression existed as the deceased were destroying Narvaez's property and restricting his right of access.
• 2. Reasonable necessity of means was not present as shooting both victims was disproportionate to the aggression.
• 3. Lack of sufficient provocation was present on Narvaez's part as he was awakened by the noise and initially tried to talk to the deceased peacefully.
• 4. The crime was homicide, not murder, because treachery and evident premeditation were not proven.
• 5. Incomplete self-defense was appreciated as not all elements were present (specifically, reasonable necessity).
• 6. Mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion/obfuscation were present.
• 7. The penalty was reduced to arresto mayor (4 months), considering the mitigating circumstances and incomplete self-defense.
• 8. Civil indemnity was reduced to P4,000.00 for each deceased's heirs, without moral damages or attorney's fees.

Doctrines

• 1. Self-Defense/Defense of Rights (Article 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code): Justifying circumstance when unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation are present. Incomplete when not all elements are present.
• 2. Defense of Property (Article 429, Civil Code): Owner or lawful possessor has the right to exclude any person from enjoyment and disposal of property and use reasonable force to repel unlawful invasion.
• 3. Unlawful Aggression: Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind. Present in this case as it was an attack on property rights.
• 4. Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13, Revised Penal Code): Circumstances that reduce criminal liability. Voluntary surrender and passion/obfuscation were considered.
• 5. Treachery and Evident Premeditation (Article 14, Revised Penal Code): Qualifying circumstances for murder, not appreciated in this case.
• 6. Alevosia (Treachery): Method of assault deliberately chosen to ensure the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant; not applicable here as the act was instantaneous.
• 7. Passion and Obfuscation: Mitigating circumstance arising when a crime is committed due to powerful emotions caused by provocation or cause other than insult or threat.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good.'" (Narvaez's plea to Rubia)
• 2. "'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.'" (Fleischer's response)
• 3. "Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind."
• 4. "The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self defense or defense of one's rights."

Precedents Cited

• 1. People vs. Manlapaz (55 SCRA 598): Cited regarding the element of sudden unprovoked attack lacking for treachery when there is provocation.
• 2. People vs. Cañete (44 Phil. 481): Cited regarding the element of deliberate choice of method of assault for treachery, requiring premeditation and not instantaneous action.
• 3. People vs. Ordioles (42 SCRA 238): Cited regarding the requirement of notorious outward acts evincing determination for evident premeditation.
• 4. People vs. Gida (102 SCRA 70): Cited regarding the sufficient interval required between premeditation and execution of the crime for evident premeditation.
• 5. Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways (43 SCRA 397): Cited to justify the reduction of moral damages when the plaintiff contributed to the defendant's reaction.
• 6. People vs. Encomiendas (46 SCRA 522): Cited to define illegal aggression.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code (Self-defense/Defense of Rights)
• 2. Article 13, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code (Incomplete Self-Defense as mitigating circumstance)
• 3. Article 13, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code (Voluntary Surrender as mitigating circumstance)
• 4. Article 13, paragraph 6, Revised Penal Code (Passion and Obfuscation as mitigating circumstance)
• 5. Article 14, Revised Penal Code (Aggravating Circumstances - Treachery, Evident Premeditation)
• 6. Article 30, Civil Code (Right to Enclose or Fence Land)
• 7. Article 429, Civil Code (Defense of Property)
• 8. Article 536, Civil Code (Possession acquired through force or intimidation)
• 9. Article 539, Civil Code (Right of possessor to be respected in possession)
• 10. Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder)
• 11. Article 249, Revised Penal Code (Homicide)
• 12. Article 64, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code (Reduction of penalty due to mitigating circumstances)
• 13. Article 69, Revised Penal Code (Penalty lower by one or two degrees for incomplete justification)
• 14. Article 39, Revised Penal Code (Subsidiary Imprisonment)
• 15. Article 22, Revised Penal Code (Retroactive effect of laws favorable to the accused)
• 16. Republic Act No. 5465 (Amendment to Article 39 RPC regarding subsidiary imprisonment)