People v Narvaez

G. R. No. L-33466-67

Facts:
One afternoon, the victims Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia were fencing the
land of Davis’ father together with Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano, and Cesar Ibanez. The
location of the hacienda was in the boundary of the highway in the municipality of Maitum,
South Cotabato were in also situated the house and rice drier of the respondent, Mamerto
Narvaez. During the course of fencing, Narvaez was resting and heard that the walls of
his house is being chiseled. In order to prevent the destruction of the bodega of his rice
mill, he approached Fleischer and Rubia telling them to stop destroying his house and
maybe they could just talk about it. But instead of hearing him out Fleischer ordered Rubia
saying, “No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead.”in which the latter complied. The respondent
lost his equilibrium so he got his gun and shot Fleischer. When Fleischer fell, Rubia ran
towards his jeep and the respondent knowing that he also has a gun on his jeep he fired
at him. Both were declared to be dead.
Prior to this event, the relationship of the parties were already tainted because of
land ownership. It was said that the land of the respondent together with other settlers
were sold to the company of George W. Fleischer (father of Davis) after the public auction
held in manila. The respondent together with other settlers contends that the land was
theirs for their petition to President Quezon to order the subdivision of the lands formerly
owned by Celebes Plantation. That upon the awarding of the lands to the company, the
settlers questioned it to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato stating that the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources erred in affirming the order of the Director of Lands
to give it to the company. That the alleged result of the amicable settlement was due to
the intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and fraudulent machination of the company.
The case was a lost caused to the settlers and they were ousted from the land. The
respondent voluntarily dismantled his house and instead transfer to area of the land near
the highway. He then establish his new house with the ground floor as a store operated
by Mrs. June Talens and also establish a rice mill at the east side of the house.
The settlers ousted filed another case at court stating their claim to the land. On
one hand, the respondent entered into a contract of lease to the Fleischers. That he would
rent the portion of the land in which his house is situated for Php 16.00 monthly. However,
he opted not to pay the Fleischers since there is still a question of ownership and that he
alleges that the milling job for Rubia was his payment. And that the company is now after
the payment of rent. That on 21 August 1968, a day before the incident, the victims
proceed in fencing the property which traversed the rice mill and the respondent’s house
making it difficult for him to access both areas. And the unfortunate event happened which
convicted him of Murder. Narvaez then question the conviction for he contends that his
action was in defense of his person, rights, and property.
Issue:
WON the contention of Narvaez justifies his action and absolve him of criminal
liability.

Held:
In order to give a proper judgment to the case at bar the court went over the
requisites of defense of property. It was contended by the respondent that he lost his
composure when the victim answered him angrily in his request as for them to resolve
the matter over a peaceful talk. That it was not his intention to fight the victim but instead
to defend his property through peaceful means. The court recognize the act of the
respondent and indeed said that the action of the victim was an unlawful aggression. The
court also considered the fact that there is a pending case regarding the ownership of the
land. That the action of the victim as to build fence around the property is not proper and
legal since there is still no verdict as to certifying the ownership of the land. Therefore the
act of the victim was an assault to the property of the respondent in which his deed was
in reaction to the damage of his property and is considered lawful. (Illegal aggression is
equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault or immediate and imminent kind.)
However, the court finds that the action of Narvaez in shooting the two victims were
not the reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repeal it. The fired shotgun
against the victims were no equal to the available instruments such as chisel, barbed
wires, bamboo post, and others which is used to damage the property of the respondent.
Thus even if the last element of defense of property is present, the lack of provocation,
the respondent is still liable. Even if the respondent does not demonstrate provocation on
his part since he was awoken by the noise and instead of being rude to the victims and
the laborers he addressed them with request of them to talk about the matter and settling
it in a peaceful manner, this will not qualify.
As the court laid down the elements and discussed that the respondent is not
violating the two requirements it still find the act of killing the victims unjustifiable. The
second element was not fulfilled in order to grant the justifying circumstance of defense
of property. Shooting the victims is not the reasonable necessity in order to prevent or
repeal the act. That in order to identify as to the necessity of the curse of action taken and
the means used place, occasion, nature and quality of weapons, physical conditions,
character and size, and other circumstances must be considered. The nature and quality
of a shotgun will never compare to those of the present materials that can be used by the
victims. Another is the vantage point of the respondent and the victims which is far from
each other making it disadvantageous to the victims. The court qualified all other
circumstances and thus rendered judgment of convicting the respondent of two counts of
Homicide rather than Murder as the prior judgment of Court of First Instance.