Scribd
Upload
210 views1 page

People v. Narvaez

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while Mamerto Narvaez admitted to shooting and killing David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, he could not claim self-defense as a justifying circumstance because not all of the requisites for self-defense were present. Specifically, it was not reasonably necessary for Narvaez to kill the two men, even though they were unlawfully aggressing on his property rights and he was not provoking them. The court found Narvaez guilty of homicide but lowered the penalty due to mitigating circumstances, and ordered his immediate release since he had already been detained for 14 years.

Uploaded by

John Turner
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
210 views1 page

People v. Narvaez

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that while Mamerto Narvaez admitted to shooting and killing David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, he could not claim self-defense as a justifying circumstance because not all of the requisites for self-defense were present. Specifically, it was not reasonably necessary for Narvaez to kill the two men, even though they were unlawfully aggressing on his property rights and he was not provoking them. The court found Narvaez guilty of homicide but lowered the penalty due to mitigating circumstances, and ordered his immediate release since he had already been detained for 14 years.

Uploaded by

John Turner
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People v.

Narvaez
G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 (121 SCRA 389)
April 20, 1983

Facts:
 Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David
Fleischer 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 fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house
and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go
ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia
who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the shooting,
Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the
defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time of the
shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to
Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property
from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25,
defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was
given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter.
Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder despite the fact he
acted in defense of his person and rights.
Ruling:
Yes. 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. Also, 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. Appellant has been under
detention for almost 14 years thus his immediate release was ordered by the Court. 

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy