PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant.

[G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983.]

FACTS:
At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibañez,
together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of
George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. The place was in the boundary of the
highway and the hacienda owned by George Fleischer. This is located in the municipality of
Maitum, South Cotabato.
At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez. At that time,
appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled,
he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, appellant would be
prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill. So he addressed the group,
saying -'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over - what is
good,' addressing the deceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer,
however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium
and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards
the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him.
Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of the shooting.
The CFI of South Cotabato held Narvaez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Thus, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the appellant with murder despite the fact the
he acted in defense of his person and rights.

RULING:

YES. 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.

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 Narvaez’s 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.

DISPOSITIVE RULING:
Wherefore, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides, mitigated by the
privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense as well as by two (2) generic mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation, without any aggravating circumstance, appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor, to indemnify each group
of heirs of davis fleischer and of flaviano rubia in the sum of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos, without
subsidiary imprisonment and without any award for moral damages and attorney's fees.

Considering that appellant has been under detention for almost fourteen (14) years now since his
voluntary surrender on august 22, 1968, his immediate release is hereby ordered. No costs. So
ordered.