People V Narvasa

People vs.
Narvasa
November 16, 1998 Abad, J
SUBJECT MATTER:
Illegal Possession of Firearms
LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPTS:
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Petitioner(s): The People of the Philippines

Respondent(s): FELICISIMO NARVASA, JIMMY ORANIA and MATEO NARVASA, accused,
FELICISIMO NARVASA and JIMMY ORANIA
SUMMARY: The appellants who killed a policeman using unlicensed firearms appealed from the
lower court's ruling convicting them of Aggravated Illegal Possession of Firearm.
FACTS:
(Prosecution's Version)
 Villamor Laderas and Ernesto Nagal, councilmen of Bani, Pangasinan, acting upon reports of
missing carabaos, pigs and goats, went to a far-flung sitio of the said town and patrolled there.
While patrolling, they chanced upon 5 men, 3 of whom were carrying firearms. Fearing for their
lives, the 2 councilmen did not do anything and proceeded to go home.
 On their way home, the 2 met 2 policemen, officers Navora and Camba, who were on patrol. The
council men reported what they saw which then led to the 4 of them tracking the armed men.
When they reached one of the armed men's house, they were met by a volley of gunfire which
then led to a shootout which then led to Officer Camba's getting hit and eventual death.
 Shortly thereafter, Felicisimo Narvasa, Glicerio Narvasa, Rederio Narvasa and Jimmy Orania
were apprehended. Mateo Narvasa was not found. Felicisimo and Jimmy were found positive of
gunpowder burns.
 The trial court held that the homicide was merely an element of the illegal possession of firearms
in its aggravated form, and was taken not as a separate crime but as an aggravating
circumstance which increased the penalty for the illegal possession of firearms. They were
initially sentenced to death but since it was prohibited by law, they were sentenced to suffer
reclusion perpetua.
(Defense' Version): Felicisimo testified that he was sleeping at his house at the time of the shooting and
that he was woken up by Glicerio informing him, Felicisimo, that his son was shot by Laderas' group
which led them to file charges against Laderas' group. He averred that Orania and the other accused
were merely helping him fix the fence in his house. They also averred that they had nothing to do with
Camba's death and that the day after the shooting incident, they were picked up by the police.
ISSUE/S, HOLDING, AND RATIO:

Was the trial court was correct in convicting them of Aggravated Illegal Possession of
Firearm?
RULING RATIO:
No, The alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' (Nagal and Laderas)
testimonies on who fired at whom was due to their being under fire at that
time. The uncertainty was too insignificant to impair their credibility.
2. The appellants contend that the existence of the firearms was not
sufficiently proven because the prosecution had not presented the firearms
as evidence. The court however, was not persuaded and cited People v
LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

Orehuela where Orehuela was convicted despite the fact that the firearm
used was not presented as evidence. In the case at bar, the testimonies of
the witnesses indubitably demonstrate the existence of the firearms. The
bullets recovered at the place where the shooting occurred also established
the existence of the said firearms. Also, SPO4 Roberto Manuel, the Assistant
Firearms and Explosives NCPO of the Pangasinan Provincial Command,
attested to the fact that Orania's and Narvasa's names did not appear in the
list of licensed firearm holders.
3. The trial court, applying People v Barros, convicted the appellants of Illegal
Possession of Firearms in its Aggravated Form and considered homicide
merely an element of the principal offense. The court imposed upon them the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, RA 8294 was enacted which
imposes a lighter penalty for the crime. Applying People v Molina where the
court explained that RA 8294 considers the use of an unlicensed firearm only
an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, the court held that
appellants can only be held liable for homicide and penalized with reclusion
temporal. RA 8294 was applied in the case at bar and was given retroactive
effect pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby MODIFIED. For the death of Primo
Camba, Appellants Felicisimo Narvasa and Jimmy Orania are found GUILTY of HOMICIDE with the
special aggravating circumstance of using unlicensed firearms. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, they are each sentenced to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum; and ordered to pay the heirs of Primo Camba P50,000 as death
indemnity. However, the award of moral damages is hereby DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

People V Narvasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Narvasa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Narvasa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPTS:

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Petitioner(s): The People of the Philippines

ISSUE/S, HOLDING, AND RATIO:

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

LAW 110 | PROF. LITONG

You might also like