People vs Narvaez
> Narvaez was convicted for the crime of 2 counts murder in the CFI and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Hence, the presentappeal.
A legal battle for the ownership on a parcel of land
between Fleischer and Co. Accused settled in the said property in 1937.Fleischer filed a sales application for the land which was later awarded to him after a public auction.
>The settlers tried to annul the order but lost the case which resulted to the ouster of the settlers.
>Narvaez was ejected and transferred his house near the highway in 1962/63. Another case was instituted to annul the priororder.
During the pendency of the case, Narvaez entered into a contract of lease w/ Fleischer on the land where he used toown. He was not able to pay the lease for 6 mos and was ordered to remove his house w/in the next 6 mos (until Dec 311968)
>August 21, 1968, the deceased Davis Fleischer and Rubia, along w/ 3 laborers commenced fencing the lot. On 8/22/68,accused was awakened by some noise as if the wall of his house was being chiselled. Getting up and looking out of the window,he found that one of the laborers of Fleischer was indeed chiselling the wall of his house with a crowbar. If the fencing would goon, appellant would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. So he tried to ask them to stop andtalk about it but Fleischer replied, 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' After which, Narvaez proceeded to get his gun and shoot athim and Rubia who was about to approach the jeep where a gun is located.
>Narvaez, in his defense, claims that what he did falls under the justifying circumstance of of defense of one’s person or ri
ghtsunder Art 11(1) of the RPC.
WON teh LC erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person.
>For the justifying circumstance of defense of one’s person or rights to be appreciated, the ff requisites must occur: (1)
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed, and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of theperson defending himself.
>Unlawful aggression in the case at bar:
There was unlawful aggression since Narvaez was given until 12/31/68 to vacate the land. He should have allowedappellant the peaceful enjoyment of his properties up to that time
, instead of chiselling the walls of his house and closingappellant's entrance and exit to the highway. At the same time, since a case was pending regarding the ownership of the land,accused still had a belief of a favorable judgment from such.
The ff provisions in the CC are in point:
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto
.He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competentcourt, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
very possessor has a right to be respected in his possession
; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected inor restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of CourtArt. 429.
The owner or lawful possessor
of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property
deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to
, nor to close his accessibility to the highwaywhile he was pleading with them to stop and talk things over with him. The
assault on appellant's property, therefore,amounts to unlawful aggression
as contemplated by law.>
Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate and imminent kind
(People vs.Encomiendas, 46 SCRA 522)
>Based on the facts, only the 1st & 3rd requisite are present since the resistance was not disproportionate to the attack soa
ccused can’t avail of the justifying circumstance but only a privileged extenuating circumstance. >Accused is guilty of 2
homicides instead of murder.