7/27/2019 Pp vs. Mapa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-mapa 1/1

 

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 aninformation dated 14

August 1962 in violation of Section 878 of the Revise Administrative Codein connection with Section

2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by CA 56 andas further amended by RA 4.

Accused admits to possession of firearm on ground of being asecret agent of Governor Feliciano Leviste

of Batangas. On 27 November 1963, the lower courtrendered 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 tothe Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not a secret agent duly appointed and qualified as such of the governor isexempt 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 partsof firearms or

ammunition therefor, or any instrument or implement used or intended to be usedin the manufacture

of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition except when such firearms arein 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 toofficers, soldiers, sailors or marines, the

Philippines Constabulary, guards in the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police,

provincial governors, lieutenant governors, provincialtreasurers, 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 interpretationcome only after it has been demonstrated that application is

impossible or inadequate withoutthem. 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 speakswith authority to the extent that the present decision conflicts with. It may be note that in

Peoplev. Macarandang, a secret agent was acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the

appointmentof the accused as a secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns

anddetection of crimes sufficiently put him within the category of a µpeace officer¶ equivalent evento amember 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.