People v.

Narvaez
April 20, 1983
Facts:
Mamerto Narvaez was convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Felischer and Flaviano Rubia.
On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that
would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill.
The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and found a fence being built. He
addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and asked if they could talk to settle the matter.
Fleischer respondend with No gadamit proceed, go ahead. Defendant lost his equilibrium and shot Fleischer
with his shotgun. When he saw Rubia running towards the jeep to get a gun, Narvaez also shot him.
Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. got involved in a legal dispute with the defendant and other land settlers in
Cotabato. The land settlers lost in that case.
At the time of the shooting, civil case was still pending for annulment. The defendant leased the property from
Fleischer to avoid trouble. Later on, Narvaez received letter terminating contract because he allegedly did not pay
rent. He was given 6 months to vacate the land. The shooting happened 2 months after the letter was received by
Narvaez.
Issue 1: WON Narvaez may invoke defense of property
HELD:
NO. Not all of the elements for defense were present in the case. Thus, defendant can only benefit from a
mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense under Article 13 (6).
1. Unlawful aggression.
- In this case, there was an unlawful aggression given the following incidents:
o Fleischers remarks: No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead.
o There was an actual physical invasion of the property
At the time of the incident, the annulment of the order of award to Fleischer and
Co. was still pending in CFI Cotabato.
Felischer had given him 6 months to vacate the land. Thus, Narvaez should have
been allowed to use the property at the time.
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack.
- The killing was not justifiable.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
- Yes. In the case at bar, there was no provocation at all.
- He was initially asleep and was only awakened by the sound of the men destroying his house.
- Initially plead that Fleischer and his men stop from destroying his property
Issue 2: WON there was presence of alevosia (element of murder)
Held: NO. There was no alevosia or treachery.
Alevosia- the method of the assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a special view to the
accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed might have
made
Impossible that there was alevosia when the slayer instantaneously acted.

Issue3: WON there was evident premeditation (aggravating circumstance)

HELD: No. Evident premeditation was not sufficiently established. There was only one testimony. Such is not
sufficient to warrant appreciation of evident premeditation.
Issue 4: What are the mitigating circumstances of the case
- Incomplete defense
- Voluntary surrender
- Passion and obfuscation
Issue 5: Penalty
HELD: Appellant guilty of two counts of homicide.
- The prescribed penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal (Article 249)
- BUT considering that the majority of the requirements for defense of property are present, the
penalty may be lowered by 2 degrees, i.e. prision correccional (Article 69)
- Further reduced by one degree, i.e., arresto mayor, due to the presence of 2 mitigating
circumstances. (Article 64)