People v. Mapa GR L-22301, 30 August 1967 (20 SCRA 1164)
It is the first and fundamental duty of courts to apply the law; Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. The law cannot be any clearer, there being no provision made for a secret agent.
People v. Mapa
GR L-22301, 30 August 1967 (20 SCRA 1164)
En Banc, Fernando (p): 9 concur
Facts:
Mario M. Mapa was charged
for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in an information dated 14
August 1962 in violation of Section 878 of the Revise Administrative Code in
connection with Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by
CA 56 and as further amended by RA 4. Accused admits to possession of firearm
on ground of being a secret agent of Governor Feliciano Leviste of Batangas. On
27 November 1963, the lower court rendered a decision convicting the accused of
the crime and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and one day to two
years. As the appeal involves a question of law, it was elevated to the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
Whether or not a secret
agent duly appointed and qualified as such of the governor is exempt from the
requirement of having a license of firearm
Held:
The law is explicit that it is unlawful for any person to
possess any firearm, detached parts of firearms or ammunition therefor, or any
instrument or implement used or intended to be used in the manufacture of
firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition except when such firearms are in
possession of such public officials and public servants for use in the
performance of their official duties; as those firearms and ammunitions which
are regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors or marines,
the Philippines 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.
It is the first and
fundamental duty of courts to apply the law; Construction and interpretation
come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or
inadequate without them. The law cannot be any clearer, there being no
provision made for a secret agent.
Reliance in the decision in People v. Macarandang is
misplaced, and the case no longer speaks with authority to the extent that the
present decision conflicts with.
It may be note that in People v. Macarandang, 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 sufficiently put him within the category of a
‘peace officer’ equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly
covered by section 879.
Thus, in the present case, therefore, the conviction must
stand. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment.
Comments
Post a Comment