TOPIC: When is STAT CON necessary
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIO MAPA Y 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.
FERNANDO, J.:
FACTS:
1. Herein defendant-appellant Mario Mapa was a secret agent of then Batangas Governor Hon. Felicino Leviste. Mapa was caught, indicted, and convicted of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one year and one day to two years and to pay the costs. The firearm and ammunition confiscated from him are forfeited in favor of the Government.
2. He admitted the possession and the counsel also affirmed his admission. They then submitted documents proving that Mapa was indeed acting as secret agent of the Batangas governor. The lower court stil found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Thus, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appointment to and holding of the position of a secret agent to the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
RULING:
NO. It does not. Sec. 879, Revised Administrative Code specifically provides that "it shall be 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." The next section provides that "firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines [of the Armed Forces of the Philippines], the Philippine 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," are not covered "when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties."
The law was very clear, secret agents are not included in the list of exempted persons who can possess firearms in the performance of their official duties. Since the defense used People Vs.Macarandang, where 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" Such reliance is misplaced. It is not within the power of this Court to set aside the clear and explicit mandate of a statutory provision. To the extent therefore that this decision conflicts with what was held in the said case, it no longer speaks with authority. Therefore, the lower court's ruling is affirmed.
RATIONALE:
Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.
Comments
Post a Comment