P

a
g
e

1

o
f

2
PEOPLE vs MAPA | G.R. No. L-22301 (20 PHIL 1164)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22301 Auus! 30" 1#6$
THE PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES" plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIO MAPA & MAPULONG" defendant-appellant.
Francisco P. Cabigao for defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General F. R. Rosete and Solicitor O. C. Hernandez for
plaintiff-appellee.
%ERNAN'O" J.:
The sole question in this appeal fro a !ud"ent of conviction b# the lo$er court is $hether or not the appointent to and
holdin" of the position of a secret a"ent to the provincial "overnor $ould constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the
crie of ille"al possession of firear and aunition. %e hold that it does not.
The accused in this case $as indicted for the above offense in an inforation dated Au"ust &', &()* readin" as follo$s+ ,The
undersi-ed accuses MAR./ MAPA 0 MAP12/N3 of a violation of 4ection 565 in connection $ith 4ection *)(* of the Revised
Adinistrative Code, as aended b# Coon$ealth Act No. 7) and as further aended b# Republic Act No. ', coitted as
follo$s+ That on or about the &8th da# of Au"ust, &()*, in the Cit# of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there
$ilfull# and unla$full# have in his possession and under his custod# and control one hoe-ade revolver 9Palti:;, Cal. **,
$ithout serial nuber, $ith si< 9); rounds of aunition, $ithout first havin" secured the necessar# license or perit therefor
fro the correspondin" authorities. Contrar# to la$.,
%hen the case $as called for hearin" on 4epteber 8, &()8, the lo$er court at the outset as:ed the counsel for the accused+
,Ma# counsel stipulate that the accused $as found in possession of the "un involved in this case, that he has neither a perit
or license to possess the sae and that $e can subit the sae on a question of la$ $hether or not an a"ent of the "overnor
can hold a firear $ithout a perit issued b# the Philippine Constabular#., After counsel sou"ht fro the fiscal an assurance
that he $ould not question the authenticit# of his e<hibits, the understandin" bein" that onl# a question of la$ $ould be
subitted for decision, he e<plicitl# specified such question to be ,$hether or not a secret a"ent is not required to "et a license
for his firear.,
1pon the lo$er court statin" that the fiscal should e<aine the docuent so that he could pass on their authenticit#, the fiscal
as:ed the follo$in" question+ ,=oes the accused adit that this pistol cal. ** revolver $ith si< rounds of aunition entioned
in the inforation $as found in his possession on Au"ust &8, &()*, in the Cit# of Manila $ithout first havin" secured the
necessar# license or perit thereof fro the correspondin" authorit#>, The accused, no$ the appellant, ans$ered
cate"oricall#+ ,0es, 0our ?onor., 1pon $hich, the lo$er court ade a stateent+ ,The accused adits, 0es, and his counsel
Att#. Cabi"ao also affirs that the accused adits.,
@orth$ith, the fiscal announced that he $as ,$illin" to subit the sae for decision., Counsel for the accused on his part
presented four 9'; e<hibits consistin" of his appointent ,as secret a"ent of the ?on. @eliciano 2eviste,, then 3overnor of
Batan"as, dated Aune *, &()*B
&
another docuent li:e$ise issued b# 3ov. 2eviste also addressed to the accused directin" hi
to proceed to Manila, Pasa# and Cue-on Cit# on a confidential issionB
*
the oath of office of the accused as such secret
a"ent,
8
a certificate dated March &&, &()8, to the effect that the accused ,is a secret a"ent, of 3ov. 2eviste.
'
Counsel for the
accused then stated that $ith the presentation of the above e<hibits he $as ,$illin" to subit the case on the question of
$hether or not a secret a"ent dul# appointed and qualified as such of the provincial "overnor is e<ept fro the requireent of
havin" a license of firear., The e<hibits $ere aditted and the parties $ere "iven tie to file their respective
eoranda.!"ph#.$%t
Thereafter on Noveber *6, &()8, the lo$er court rendered a decision convictin" the accused ,of the crie of ille"al
possession of firears and sentenced to an indeterinate penalt# of fro one #ear and one da# to t$o #ears and to pa# the
costs. The firear and aunition confiscated fro hi are forfeited in favor of the 3overnent.,
The onl# question bein" one of la$, the appeal $as ta:en to this Court. The decision ust be affired.
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | DURA LEX SED LEX | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

1

o
f

2
PEOPLE vs MAPA | G.R. No. L-22301 (20 PHIL 1164)
The la$ is e<plicit that e<cept as thereafter specificall# allo$ed, ,it shall be unla$ful for an# person to . . . possess an# firear,
detached parts of firears or aunition therefor, or an# instruent or ipleent used or intended to be used in the
anufacture of firears, parts of firears, or aunition.,
7
The ne<t section provides that ,firears and aunition re"ularl#
and la$full# issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or arines Dof the Ared @orces of the PhilippinesE, the Philippine Constabular#,
"uards in the eplo#ent of the Bureau of Prisons, unicipal police, provincial "overnors, lieutenant "overnors, provincial
treasurers, unicipal treasurers, unicipal a#ors, and "uards of provincial prisoners and !ails,, are not covered ,$hen such
firears are in possession of such officials and public servants for use in the perforance of their official duties.,
)
The la$ cannot be an# clearer. No provision is ade for a secret a"ent. As such he is not e<ept. /ur tas: is equall# clear. The
first and fundaental dut# of courts is to appl# the la$. ,Construction and interpretation coe onl# after it has been
deonstrated that application is ipossible or inadequate $ithout the.,
6
The conviction of the accused ust stand. .t cannot
be set aside.
Accused ho$ever $ould rel# on People &. 'acarandang,
5
$here a secret a"ent $as acquitted on appeal on the assuption
that the appointent ,of the accused as a secret a"ent to assist in the aintenance of peace and order capai"ns and
detection of cries, sufficientl# put hi $ithin the cate"or# of a ,peace officer, equivalent even to a eber of the unicipal
police e<pressl# covered b# section 56(., 4uch reliance is isplaced. .t is not $ithin the po$er of this Court to set aside the
clear and e<plicit andate of a statutor# provision. To the e<tent therefore that this decision conflicts $ith $hat $as held
in People &. 'acarandang, it no lon"er spea:s $ith authorit#.
%herefore, the !ud"ent appealed fro is affired.
Concepcion, C.(., Re)es, (.*.+., ,izon, 'a-alintal, *engzon, (.P., .aldi&ar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, ((., concur.
%oo!(o!)s
&
E<hibit &.
*
E<hibit *.
8
E<hibit 8.
'
E<hibit '.
7
4ec. 565 as aended b# Republic Act No. ', Revised Adinistrative Code.
)
4ec. 56(, Revised Adinistrative Code.
6
2i-arra"a ?eranos v. 0ap Tico, 9&(&8; *' Phil. 7F', 7&8.
5
2-&*F55, =eceber *8, &(7(.
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | DURA LEX SED LEX | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |