Pp v. Narvaez
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 he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party.
Held: No.
ISSUE : Whether or not he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party.
Held: No.
Ratio: He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil
indemnity. RA 5465 made the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only and
not to reparation of damage caused, indemnification of consequential damages
and costs of proceedings. Although it was enacted only after its conviction,
considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment