PEOPLE v.

NARVAEZ
People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee
Mamerto Narvaez - defendent-appellant

Date: April 20, 1983

G.R. NOS. L-33466-67 (121 SCRA 389)

Ponente: Makasiar, J.

Court Deciding: En Banc

Relief: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal
Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder

Doctrine: Justifying Circumstances - Unlawful Aggression against property rights: Defense of property
can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person
of one entrusted with said property.
*It must be noted that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim
had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.
*Also, the party should have been the subject of a real and imminent threat, which represents the
unlawful aggression made upon him. There must also be reasonableness in his use of a knife or
any other weapon as his means to defend himself. And finally, there should be no provocation on
his part that caused his aggressor to harm him.

Fast Facts: Narvaez was formerly convicted of murder for the death of Fleischer and Rubia. Defendant
claimed that he shot the two as an act of self-defense as a means to protect himself and his
property therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. The two were building a fence
around his property and asked them to stop but did not and was thereby provoked by Fleischers
unlawful aggression. While the two requirements for invoking self-defense was present (unlawful
aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself),
Narvaezs act was considered as an incomplete self-defense because it lacked reasonable
necessity of the means employed. The crime committed is now homicide and his sentence was
lowered but because he has been under detention longer than the prescribed period of his
imprisonment for said new crime, the court ordered for his immediate release.

Normal Facts:
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder for the death of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia.
On Aug. 22, 1968, Narvaez was taking a nap in the afternoon when he heard sounds of construction
and found a fence being made. Fleischer and Rubia were constructing a fence that would
prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. Defendant addressed the group
and asked them to stop and talk things over. Fleischer responded with, No, gadamit,
proceed, go ahead. Narvaez lost his equilibrium and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep where a gun was available but Narvaez shot him before reaching such.
It is said that the incident is intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between Fleischer and
Co., Inc. and the land settlers of Cotobato among whom was Narvaez. At the time of the
 shooting, the civil case between the parties was still pending for annulment where the settlers
wanted granting of property to Fleischer to be annulled. At the time of the shooting, Narvaez
had leased his property from Fleischer to avoid conflict. On June 25, Narvaez received a
letter terminating the contract because he has not paid rent for six months to the company.
He was given 6 months to remove his house, ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps. The
shooting happened barely 2 months after the letter.
Narvaez claimed that he acted in defense of his person and property but the CFI of Cotabato ruled
that he was guilty of murder. He was originally sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify
the heirs, and to pay for moral damages.

Issues: WON the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder despite the fact the he acted in
defense of his person and rights.

Held: YES

Ratio: Narvaez admitted having shot the two deceased but did so in defense of his person and of his
property however, he cannot be exempted from criminal liability because the argument of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requisites are present (unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself). Although there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victims towards Narvaezs property rights and lack (or absence
even) of provocation since appellant was resting, it was not a reasonable necessity for him to kill
the two. Since not all requisites were present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Also, there was no direct evidence of planning or
preparing to kill. The crime committed was homicide and the penalty for such is reclusion
temporal but due to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation and
incomplete self-defense, penalty was lowered to arresto mayor. Appellant has been under
detention for almost 14 years thus his immediate release was ordered by the Court.

Dissenting opinions:
Abad Santos, J. - The self-defense of the RPC refers to unlawful aggression on persons, not property.
Gutierrez, JR., J. - Agrees with the order to release appellant but believes that the mere utterance of
No, gademit, proceed, go ahead is not the unlawful aggression which entitles appellant to
the plea of self-defense. Crime is only homicide but should be without any privileged
mitigating circumstance.