People of the Philippines Vs.

Mamerto Narvaez
Basic Principles: Prospectivity, April 20, 1983, F. Makasiar
Nature of the Case: appeal on conviction for murder
Digest Maker: Jul Mar Esteban
Summary: Defendant-appellant Narvaez voluntarily surrendered after killing one Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia,
after finding both and several others attempting to fence off his land, cutting access to the outside. He was
subsequently charged and found guilty of murder by the trial court. The SC ruled that the crime committed was
actually homicide on two counts. Furthermore, retroactivity of R.A. 5465 is applied, removing the requirement for
subsidiary imprisonment due to lack of property to meet civil liabilities.
Facts: Appellant Mamerto Narvaez awoke on the afternoon of August 22, 1968 and found Davis Fleischer, Flaviano
Rubia, and three others chiselling the walls of his house and fencing off the land. This land is the subject of a land
dispute between American landowner Fleishcer and land settlers which included Narvaez. Appellant addressed the
group asking to talk, but Fleishcer commanded that the group continue. The appellant then got his shotgun and
shot Fleishcer, killing him. Fabia ran towards their jeep. Knowing that there was a gun in the jeep, appellant also fired
on Fabia, killing him. Appellant subsequently surrendered to the authorities.
Issues & Ratio:
1. W/N the lower court erred in convicting appellant of murder.
Yes. The qualifying circumstances cited by the lower courts, treachery and evident premeditation, are
found absent by the SC. The presence of provocation rules out treachery, which is a sudden unprovoked
attack. The lack of evidence of direct planning, and the verbal pleading of the appellant to talk rules out
evident premeditation.
2. W/N the appellant acted in defence of his person or rights.
Qualified Yes. The SC found that the requirements of unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient
provocation were present in this case, unlawful aggression borne of the invasion of what he believed to be
his property. However, the requirement of reasonable necessity of the means employed was absent.
3. W/N the appellant is required to render subsidiary imprisonment.1
No. Article 39 of the RPC requires “a person convicted of prision correccional or arrests mayor and fine who
has no property with which to meet his civil liabilities to serve a subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of one
(1) day for each P 2.50.” However, R.A. 5465, passed on April 21, 1969, made Art. 39 applicable only to
fines. Due to R.A. 5465 being favourable to the accused, it is given retroactive effect based on Art. 22,
RPC.

Ruling: Appellant found guilty of two homicides mitigated by incomplete self-defence, voluntary surrender, and
obfuscation. Four months of imprisonment (arresto mayor), Php 4,000 to each group of heirs of the deceased, no
subsidiary imprisonment.
Separate Opinions
ABAD SANTOS (dissenting): Self- defense of the RPC refers to unlawful aggression on persons, not property.
GUTIERREZ, JR (dissenting): An attack on the person defending his property is an indispensable element where an
accused pleads self-defense but what is basically defended is only property.

1
Focus on this one, it’s the one that relates to the topic of prospectivity.