PEOPLE VS NARVAEZ

GR NO. L-33466-67 APRIL 20 1983

FACTS
On February 21, 1967, the appellant entered into a contract of lease with Fleischer and Co. where
he agreed to lease an area where his house and rice mill are now located. He never paid the
agreed rental of 16php monthly thus the company gave the appellant 6 months, which would
expire on December 31, 1966, to remove the house, ricemill and bodega and water pitcher
pumps. At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, while appellant Mamerto Narvaez
was taking his rest, he heard the wall of his house being chiseled and saw the fencing of the walls
of his house, which would prevent the appellant from getting into his house and bodega of his
rice mill if the fencing would go on. He addressed the group of Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano,
Cesar Ibanez, together with the deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia who were fencing
the land to stop destroying his house and instead talk the matter over. The deceased Fleischer
ordered the group to proceed which prompted the appellant to get 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. The two died as a result of shooting.
ISSUE
W/N the defendant is entitled to mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense
RULING
Yes. The appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for
justification are present. He should therefore be held responsible for the death of his victims, but
he could be credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to
paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
In the case at bar, the deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to appellants house nor
to close his accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and talk things
over with. The assault on appellants property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as
contemplated by law. There was an actual physical invasion of appellants property which he had
the right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code. the reasonableness of the resistance,
which is also a requirement of self-defense of ones rights, is not present because when the
appellant fired his shotgun from his window that killed his 2 victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack. The third element of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the appellant who was defending the property is however present. There was no provocation at
all on his part since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced by the
victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over
with him was no provocation at all