143263-1967-People v. Mapa y Mapulong PDF

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22301. August 30, 1967.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO

MAPA Y MAPULONG , defendant-appellant.
Francisco P. Cabigao for defendant and appellant.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Asst. Solicitor General F .R. Rosete and
Solicitor O. C . Hernandez for plaintiff and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; DUTY OF COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW;

WHEN A LAW SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED. — The rst and
fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come
only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate
without them.
2. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; LICENSE REQUIREMENT; SECRET
AGENT NOT EXEMPT; CASE AT BAR. — As secret agent is not included in the
enumeration in Section 897 of the Revised Administrative Code of persons who are not
prohibited in Section 878, Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 4, from possessing "any rearm, detached parts of rearms or ammunition
therefor, or any instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of rearms, parts of rearms, or ammunition," appellant is not exempt
from the requirement of license.
3. ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE IN PEOPLE V. MACARANDANG OVERRULED. — Reliance
of the accused in the case at bar on People v. Macarandang, 106 Phil. 713, where a
secret agent was acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment "of the
accused as a secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns
and detection of crimes, su ciently put him within the category of a `peace o cer'
equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered by section 897,"
is misplaced. It is not within the power of the Supreme Court to set aside the clear and
explicit mandate of a statutory provision.
DECISION
FERNANDO , J : p
The sole question in this appeal from a judgment of conviction by the lower court
is whether or not the appointment to and the holding of the position of a secret agent
to the provincial governor would constitute a su cient defense to a prosecution for the
crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. We hold that it does not.
The accused in this case was indicted for the above offense in an information
dated August 14, 1962 reading as follows: "The undersigned accuses MARIO MAPA Y
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
MAPULONG of a violation of Section 878 in connection with Section 2692 of the
Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 56 and as further
amended by Republic Act No. 4, committed as follows: That on or about the 13th day of
August, 1962, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there
wilfully and unlawfully have in his possession and under his custody and control one
home-made revolver (Paltik), Cal. 22, without serial number, with six (6) rounds of
ammunition, without rst having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from
the corresponding authorities. Contrary to law."
When the case was called for hearing on September 3, 1963, the lower court at
the outset asked the counsel for the accused: "May counsel stipulate that the accused
was found in possession of the gun involved in this case, that he has neither a permit or
license to possess the same and that we can submit the same on a question of law
whether or not an agent of the governor can hold a rearm without a permit issued by
the Philippine Constabulary." After counsel sought from the scal an assurance that he
would not question the authenticity of his exhibits, the understanding being that only a
question of law would be submitted for decision, he explicitly speci ed such question
to be "whether or not a secret agent is not required to get a license for his firearm."
Upon the lower court stating that the scal should examine the documents so
that he could pass on their authenticity, the scal asked the following question: "Does
the accused admit that this pistol cal. 22 revolver with six rounds of ammunition
mentioned in the information was found in his possession on August 13, 1962, in the
City of Manila without rst having secured the necessary license or permit thereof from
the correspondent authority?" The accused now the appellant, answered categorically:
"Yes, Your Honor." Upon which, the lower court made a statement: "The accused admits,
Yes, and his counsel Atty. Cabigao also affirms that the accused admits."
Forthwith, the scal announced that he was "willing to submit the same for
decision." Counsel for the accused on his part presented four (4) exhibits consisting of
his appointment 'as secret agent of the Hon. Feliciano Leviste, then Governor of
Batangas, dated June 2, 1962; 1 another document likewise issued by Gov. Leviste also
addressed to the accused directing him to proceed to Manila, Pasay and Quezon City
on a con dential mission; 2 the oath of o ce of the accused as such secret agent; 3 a
certi cate dated March 11, 1963, to the effect that the accused "is a secret agent" of
Gov. Leviste. 4 Counsel for the accused then stated that with the presentation of the
above exhibits he was "willing to submit the case on the question of whether or not a
secret agent duly appointed and quali ed as such of the provincial governor is exempt
from the requirement of having a license of rearm." The exhibits were admitted and
the parties were given time to file their respective memoranda.
Thereafter on November 27, 1963, the lower court rendered a decision convicting
the accused "of the crime of illegal possession of rearms and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of from one year and one day to two years and to pay the costs.
The rearm and ammunition con scated from him are forfeited in favor of the
Government."
The only question being one of law, the appeal was taken to this Court. The
decision must be affirmed.
The law is explicit that except as thereafter specially allowed, "it shall be unlawful
for any person to . . . possess any rearm, detached parts of rearms or ammunition
therefor, or any instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of rearms, parts of rearms, or ammunition." 5 The next section provides
that " rearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to o cers, soldiers, sailors,
or marines [of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine Constabulary, guards
in the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors,
lieutenant governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal mayors, and
guards of provincial prisoners and jails," are not covered" when such rearms are in
possession of such o cials and public servants for use in the performance of their
official duties." 6
The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As such
he is not exempt. Our task is equally clear. The rst and fundamental duty of courts is
to apply the law. "Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them." 7 The
conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside. Accused however would
rely on People v. Macarandang, 8 where a secret agent was acquitted on appeal on the
assumption that the appointment "of the accused as a secret agent to assist in the
maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes, su ciently put
him within the category of a 'peace o cer' equivalent even to a member of the
municipal police expressly covered by section 879." Such reliance is misplaced. It is not
within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a statutory
provision. To the extent therefore that this decision con icts with what was held in
People v. Macarandang, it no longer speaks with authority.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Concepcion, C .J ., Reyes, J .B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Exhibit 1.
2. Exhibit 2.
3. Exhibit 3.
4. Exhibit 4.
5. Sec. 878 as amended by Republic Act No. 4, Revised Administrative Code.
6. Sec. 879, Revised Administrative Code.
7. Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, (1913) 24 Phil. 504, 513.

8. 106 Phil. 713.

143263-1967-People v. Mapa y Mapulong PDF

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

143263-1967-People v. Mapa y Mapulong PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22301. August 30, 1967.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO

Francisco P. Cabigao for defendant and appellant.

1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; DUTY OF COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW;

7. Lizarraga Hermanos v. Yap Tico, (1913) 24 Phil. 504, 513.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like