Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Defendant: Jesus Santayana
Jesus Santayana was appointed as a special agent for the CIS in 1962 and was issued a pistol for his duties and protection. In October 1962, he was found in possession of the pistol and ammunition in Plaza Miranda without a license. He was convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that under the prevailing doctrine at the time, Santayana's appointment as a secret agent was equivalent to a peace officer so he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the firearm issued to him and reversed his conviction.
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Defendant: Jesus Santayana
Jesus Santayana was appointed as a special agent for the CIS in 1962 and was issued a pistol for his duties and protection. In October 1962, he was found in possession of the pistol and ammunition in Plaza Miranda without a license. He was convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that under the prevailing doctrine at the time, Santayana's appointment as a secret agent was equivalent to a peace officer so he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the firearm issued to him and reversed his conviction.
Plaintiff: People of the Philippines
Defendant: Jesus Santayana
Jesus Santayana was appointed as a special agent for the CIS in 1962 and was issued a pistol for his duties and protection. In October 1962, he was found in possession of the pistol and ammunition in Plaza Miranda without a license. He was convicted but appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that under the prevailing doctrine at the time, Santayana's appointment as a secret agent was equivalent to a peace officer so he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the firearm issued to him and reversed his conviction.
PEOPLE VS SANTAYANA FACTS: On February 19, 1962, accused Jesus Santayana, was appointed as a "Special Agent" by Colonel Jose C. Maristela, Chief of the CIS. On March 9, 1962, a memorandum receipt for equipment was issued in the name of the accused regarding one pistol. Col. Maristela likewise issued an undated certification to the effect that the accused was an accredited member of the CIS and the pistol described in the said memorandum receipt was given to him by virtue of his appointment as special agent and that he was authorized to carry and possess the same in the performance of his official duty and for his personal protection. On October 29, 1962, the accused was found in Plaza Miranda in possession of the above- described pistol with four rounds of ammunition without a license to possess them. An investigation was conducted and thereupon, a corresponding complaint was filed against the accused. The case underwent trial after which the accused was convicted of the crime charged with its corresponding penalty. Hence, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether Santayana, a secret agent, was liable for illegal possession of firearms. HELD: No. There is no question that appellant was appointed as CIS secret agent with the authority to carry and possess firearms. Indeed, appellant was issued a firearm in the performance of his official duties and for his personal protection. It also appears that appellant was informed by Col. Maristela that it was not necessary for him to apply for a license or to register the said firearm because it was government property and therefore could not legally be registered or licensed in appellant's name. Capt. Adolfo M. Bringas from whom appellant received the firearm also informed the latter that no permit to carry the pistol was necessary "because you are already appointed as CIS agent." At the time of appellant's apprehension, the doctrine then prevailing is enunciated in the case of People vs. Macarandang wherein We held that the appointment of a civilian as "secret agent to assist in the maintenace of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently puts him within the category of a 'peace officer' equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered by Section 879." The case of People vs. Mapa revoked the doctrine in the Macarandang case only on August 30, 1967. Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at the time of appellant's appointment as secret agent, he incurred no criminal liability for possession of the pistol in question. Wherefore, and conformably with the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant Jesus Santayana y Escudero is hereby acquitted.