THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL LICERA, defendant-appellant.
CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
1. Rafael Licera was a secret agent. He was charged with the crime illegal possession of a Winchester rifle, Model 55, Caliber .30. The complaint was filed on 03 December 1965 and on 13 August1966, he was convicted with an indeterminate sentence ranging from 5 years and 1 day to 6 years and 8 months.
2. The parties agreed to have a joint trial for the illegal possession of firearm case and assault upon a person of authority, both have arisen when he was apprehended by the Chief of Police and patrolman of Abra de Ilog on December 2, 1965, for possession of the Winchester rifle without the requisite license or permit therefor. He was acquitted of the latter charge. Licera invokes as his legal justification for his possession of the Winschester rifle his appointment as secret agent on December 11, 1961 by Governor Feliciano Leviste of Batangas. He claims that as secret agent, he was a "peace officer" and, thus, pursuant to People vs. Macarandang, was exempt from the requirements relating to the issuance of license to possess firearms. He alleges that the court a quo erred in relying on the later case of People vs. Mapa which held that section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code provides no exemption for persons appointed as secret agents by provincial governors from the requirements relating to firearm licenses. The principal question thus posed calls for a determination of the rule that should be applied to the case at bar that enunciated in Macarandang or that in Mapa.
ISSUE:
W/N the judgment in the case of Mapa could be retroactively applied in Licera's case.
RULING:
NO. It couldn't be retroactively applied. Not only laws have legal binding effects but so as judicial decisions applying and interpreting the laws. Although the case of Macarandang exempting secret agents from the penalty of illegal possession of firearm was overturned by the case of Mapa in 1967, it must be noted that that decision was rendered in 1965 and Licera's apprehension happened in 1965. Certainly, where a new doctrine abrogates an old rule, the new doctrine should operate respectively only and should not adversely affect those favored by the old rule, especially those who relied thereon and acted on the faith thereof. Thus, Rafael Licera is not convicted of the crime of illegal possession of firearm; the judgment is reversed.
RATIONALE:
Not only laws shall have no retroactive effect, so as judicial decisions which are penal in nature.
Comments
Post a Comment