Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Case Digest (People v. Narvaez)

    Uploaded by

    Johnny English
    The defendant shot and killed two men who were fencing his house without his permission, as part of an ongoing land dispute. The court found the defendant guilty of homicide but with mitigating circumstances. While the killing was not a legitimate act of self-defense, the defendant had acted to defend his property rights, as the land dispute was still pending in court. The court sentenced the defendant to 4 months imprisonment, a mitigated penalty given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest (People v. Narvaez)

    Uploaded by

    Johnny English
    98 views2 pages
    The defendant shot and killed two men who were fencing his house without his permission, as part of an ongoing land dispute. The court found the defendant guilty of homicide but with mitigating circumstances. While the killing was not a legitimate act of self-defense, the defendant had acted to defend his property rights, as the land dispute was still pending in court. The court sentenced the defendant to 4 months imprisonment, a mitigated penalty given the circumstances.

    Original Description:

    People v Narvaez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant shot and killed two men who were fencing his house without his permission, as part of an ongoing land dispute. The court found the defendant guilty of homicide but with mitigating circumstances. While the killing was not a legitimate act of self-defense, the defendant had acted to defend his property rights, as the land dispute was still pending in court. The court sentenced the defendant to 4 months imprisonment, a mitigated penalty given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views2 pages

    Case Digest (People v. Narvaez)

    Uploaded by

    Johnny English
    The defendant shot and killed two men who were fencing his house without his permission, as part of an ongoing land dispute. The court found the defendant guilty of homicide but with mitigating circumstances. While the killing was not a legitimate act of self-defense, the defendant had acted to defend his property rights, as the land dispute was still pending in court. The court sentenced the defendant to 4 months imprisonment, a mitigated penalty given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

    vs.
    MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant
    G.R. Nos. L-33466-67
    April 20, 1983

    Facts:
    Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia were fencing the house of appellant Mamerto
    Narvaez in the afternoon of August 22, 1968. Appellant, at the time, was napping. But, he heard
    the walls of his house being chiseled and he got up and looked out his window. He saw Fleischer
    and Rubia fencing his house and blocking the way going into his house and the bodega of his
    rice mill. He went to the group and told them to ‘stop destroying his house’ and also to ‘talk to
    him properly about their issue’. Fleischer then said ‘gademit’ and told his laborers to proceed
    with the fencing. When appellant heard this, he “lost his equilibrium” and got his gun and shot
    Fleischer. Rubia, seeing Fleischer fell down, ran towards their jeep that was parked on the
    highway. Assuming that the jeep had a weapon inside, appellant fired at Rubia. Appellant
    immediately surrendered to the police after the incident and also surrendered his weapon, which
    was a shotgun. He admitted to shooting the two (2) victims.

    It was founded that the incident was related to a legal battle between Fleischer and Co.,
    Inc., of which Fleischer was the secretary-treasurer and Rubia was the assistant manager, and the
    land settlers of Cotabato, among which was the appellant. The company filed a sales application
    over the area which the settlers lived, covering 1,017 out of 2000 hectares. However, through a
    public land surveyor, only 300 hectares were set aside for the sales application. These 300
    hectares of land were declared open for auction and Fleischer and Co. was the only bidder. The
    settlers then protested against the auction which lead to the reward of 300 hectares being held
    from the company. An investigator was sent to the area and after ten days, went back with an
    amicable settlement signed by the representative of the settlers. The settlement was refused by
    the settlers but the Director of Lands approved the settlement and ordered the formal award of
    the land to Fleischer and Co. The settlers then appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and
    Natural Resources, who affirmed the decision to award the land to the company. Then they filed
    a case in the RTC of Cotabato for the purpose of annulling the order of the said Secretary, but the
    RTC decided in favor of the company. They went to the CA and the CA also affirmed the
    decision of the RTC. This resulted in the ouster of the settlers, including the appellant. Wanting
    to avoid trouble, appellant voluntarily destroyed his house and transferred to his other house near
    the highway. Some time after, the settlers, including the appellant, filed a case in the RTC of
    Cotabato Branch 1 to obtain an injunction of the order of the award with prayer for preliminary
    injunction. While the case was pending, appellant entered into a contract of lease with the
    company, agreeing to lease an area of the land. However, the ownership of the land was still
    uncertain. Nevertheless, appellant signed the contract to avoid trouble. The appellant never paid
    rental, but he said that the job they did for Rubia was considered their payment. Fleischer then
    wrote a letter to the appellant, saying that despite repeated attempts by him and Rubia to collect
    the rental from him, the appellant still refused. He told the appellant that he will terminate their
    agreement and that the appellant has six (6) months to remove his house, rice mill, bodega, and
    water pitcher pumps from the land or else they will destroy them. After all of the events
    mentioned, the incident happened and Fleischer and Rubia were killed.

    Issues:
     WHETHER the RTC erred in convicting the appellant despite the fact that he acted in
    defense of his person.
     WHETHER the RTC erred in convicting the appellant although he acted in defense of his
    rights.

    Held:
     1st issue: NO. While there was aggression done by Fleischer and Rubia, it was an attack
    on the appellant’s rights and not of his person. With this, the appellant’s decision to shoot
    them was not an act of self-defense.
     2nd issue: YES. Article 30 of the Civil Code states the right of every owner to “enclose or
    fence his land or tenements”. But, the case for the annulment of the order of award of the
    land to Fleischer and Co. was still pending. After some time, the sales patent was
    annulled and the certificate of title to be issued to the company was canceled on the
    ground that the Director of Lands had no authority to conduct the sale due to his failure to
    comply with the mandatory requirements for publication. With this, the company cannot
    claim ownership to the land. Pursuant to Articles 536 and 539 of the Civil Code,
    Fleischer and Rubia had no right to destroy or cause damage to the appellant’s home, nor
    close the accessibility to the highway.

    Decision:
    Appellant is charged with two (2) counts of homicide, which is mitigated by the
    circumstance of Incomplete Self-defense (since one justifying circumstance is absent, namely
    “Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack”) and by two (2) generic
    mitigating circumstances of Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation. No aggravating
    circumstances. Appellant is sentenced to 4 months (Arresto Mayor) of imprisonment. (Article
    249 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for homicide as “reclusion temporal”. But,
    pursuant to Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty may be lowered if the majority of
    the justifying circumstances is present. Since they are, the penalty may be lowered by two
    degrees, or “prision correccional”. Also, under Article 64, paragraph 5, the penalty may be
    further reduced by one degree (arresto mayor) since there are two mitigating circumstances and
    no aggravating circumstance)

    You might also like