PEOPLE v.

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

Ponente: Makasiar, J.

Principles Involved:

(JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE) Requisites of Self-defense:

1. There must be an unlawful aggression

2. There is reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. There was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Facts:

Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder for the death of David Fleischer and
Flaviano Rubia. Narvaez claimed that he shot the two in an act of self-defense as a means to
protect himself and his property when Narvaez was awakened from his afternoon nap and saw
Fleischer and Rubia constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his
house and rice mill. Defendant asked the two to stop but Fleischer responded with, “No,
gadamit, proceed, go ahead.” That provoked Narvaez to lose his temper because of the
unlawful aggression and therefafter shot Fleischer dead. Rubia ran towards the jeep where a
gun was available but Narvaez was able to shoot him first before reaching the gun. Narvaez
claimed that he acted in defense of his person and property but the CFI of Cotabato ruled that
he was guilty of murder. While the two requirements for invoking self-defense was present
which are unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself, the defendant’s act was considered as an incomplete self-defense for the
reason that it lacked reasonable necessity of the means employed. The crime committed is now
homicide and his sentence was lowered but because he has been under detention longer than
the prescribed period of his imprisonment for said new crime, the court ordered for his
immediate release.

Issues: Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder despite the fact
the he acted in defense of his person and rights.

Held: YES

Ratio:
Narvaez cannot be exempted from criminal liability even though he admitted that
he shot the two in act of self-defense to persons and to his property 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.