TOPIC: DURA LEX SED LEX,
EXCEPTION: INAPPLICABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES
PEOPLE V. SANTAYANA, G.R. NO. L- 22291,Nov. 15,1976
(In relation to People v. Mapa, and People v. Macarandang)
COMMON ISSUE: WON a Secret Agent is authorized to possess
firearms and therefore exempt from the requirement of having a
license.
(1959) MACARANDANG CASE: YES
(1967)MAPA CASE: NO
(1976) SANTAYANA CASE: YES
CASE#1
People of the Philippines v. Moro Macarandang
G.R. No. L-12088 (December 23, 1959)
FACTS:
Defendant was accused and convicted of illegal possession of firearms
in Lanao. Defendant, admitting the ownership and possession of the
firearm and ammunitions, invokes as his legal excuse the appointment
issued to him by Governor Dimakuta as secret agent shown in the
Governor’s letter which he presented as an evidence. He was granted
this appointment for having shown good faith by previously
surrendering to the office of the Governor a firearm. He has then been
appointed as SECRET AGENT to assist on the maintenance of peace
and order campaigns and is authorized to hold and carry in his
possession 1 Riot shotgun.
ISSUE:
W/N a Secret Agent tasked to assist in the maintenance of peace and
order falls among those authorized to possess firearms.
HELD: YES
It may be true that the Governor has no authority to issue any firearm
license or permit but section 879 of the Revised Administrative
Code provides that “peace officers” are exempted from the
requirements relating to the issuance of license to possess firearms.
The appointment sufficiently put him in the category of “peace officer”
equivalent even to a Municipal Police expressly covered by section 879.
The defendant was acquitted
CASE#2
People of the Philippines v. Mapa
GR L-22301, 30 August 1967
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: NO
The law (section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code) is
explicit
"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."5 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 cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent.
As such he is not exempt. The courts’ task is equally clear. The first and
fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. "Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
application is impossible or inadequate without them." The conviction
of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.
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. Thus, defendant was
convicted.
CASE#3
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SANTAYANA, G.R. NO. L-
22291,Nov. 15,1976
FACTS:
Accused, Jesus Santayana y Escudero, was found guilty of the
crime of illegal possesion of firearms and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year and one (1) day to
two (2) years and to pay the costs.
On February 19, 1962, accused Jesus Santayana, was appointed
as "Special Agent" by then Colonel Jose C. Maristela, Chief of the
CIS.
On March 9, 1962, a Memorandum Receipt for equipment was
issued in the name of the accused regarding one pistol Melior
SN-122137 with one (1) mag and stock. Col. Maristela likewise
issued an undated certification to the effect that the accused was
an accredited member of the CIS and the pistol described in the
said Memorandum Receipt was given to him by virtue of his
appointment as special agent and that he was authorized to
carry and possess the same in the performance of his official
duty and for his personal protection.
On October 29, 1962, the accused was found in Plaza Miranda
in possession of the above-described pistol with four rounds of
ammunition, cal. 25, without a license to possess them.
An investigation was conducted and thereupon, a corresponding
complaint was filed against the accused. The case underwent
trial after which the accused was convicted of the crime charged
with its corresponding penalty. Hence, the case was appealed.
Santayana alleged two main issues and one of which is that
whether or not his appointment as special agent of the CIS,
which apparently authorizes him to carry and possess firearms,
exempts him from securing a license or permit corresponding
thereto. .
The law (section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code) is
explicit
"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."5 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 cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent.
As such he is not exempt. The courts’ task is equally clear. The first and
fundamental duty of courts is to apply the law. "Construction and
interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that
application is impossible or inadequate without them."
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.
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.
At the time of appellant's apprehension, the doctrine then
prevailing is enunciated in the case of People vs. Macarandang
wherein it was held that the appointment of a civilian as "secret
agent to assist in the maintenace of peace and order campaigns
and detection of crimes sufficiently puts him within the
category of a 'peace officer' equivalent even to a member of the
municipal police expressly covered by Section 879."
The case of People vs. Mapa revoked the doctrine in the
Macarandang case only on August 30, 1967.
Under the Macarandang rule therefore obtaining at the time
of appellant's appointment as secret agent, he incurred no
criminal liability for possession of the pistol in question.
Accused however would rely on People v. 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 879."
Thus, the defendant was acquitted.

ISSUE:

WON plain meaning of Sec 879 of the Revised Administrative

Code may be applied in this criminal case.

NO. IN THIS CASE, PLAIN MEANING RULE MAY NOT BE

APPLIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE
MACARANDANG CASE WHICH WAS THEN PREVAILING
DURING APPELLANT’S APPREHENSION.