Title
People vs. Jabinal y Carmen
Case
G.R. No. L-30061
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1974
Jose Jabinal, appointed as a secret agent, possessed a firearm under prevailing jurisprudence (*Macarandang* and *Lucero*). The Supreme Court acquitted him, ruling that retroactive application of *Mapa* was unjust, as he relied on valid legal interpretations at the time.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30061)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural Background
    • The People of the Philippines (plaintiff–appellee) filed Criminal Case No. 889 in the Municipal Court of Batangas against Jose Jabinal y Carmen (defendant–appellant) for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition.
    • The Municipal Court found him guilty on December 27, 1968, sentencing him to an indeterminate term of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years’ imprisonment, with legal accessories.
  • Charge and Plea
    • Complaint alleged that on or about 9:00 p.m. of September 5, 1964, in the Poblacion, Municipality of Batangas, the accused, “a person not authorized by law,” possessed a .22-caliber RG 8 German-made revolver with one live round and four empty shells without a permit.
    • On arraignment (September 11, 1964), the accused pleaded not guilty but later admitted possession without a license or permit.
  • Appointments Claimed as Defense
    • Appointment as Secret Agent by Governor Feliciano Leviste (December 10, 1962) authorizing him as a “peace officer” to detect crimes and “have the right to bear” the specific .22 revolver.
    • Appointment as Confidential Agent by the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary (March 15, 1964) empowering him to possess the ROHM .22 revolver for official duties (intelligence on smuggling, subversives, loose firearms).
  • Trial Court’s Rationale
    • The trial court recognized the appointments but held that the Supreme Court’s prior rulings in People vs. Macarandang (1959) and People vs. Lucero (1958) were overruled by People vs. Mapa (1967).
    • The court treated the appointments as mitigating circumstances but nevertheless convicted based on the Mapa doctrine.

Issues:

  • Main Issue
    • Whether appellant’s possession of the revolver, authorized under the prevailing Macarandang and Lucero jurisprudence at the time of the offense, should be exempted despite the Supreme Court’s subsequent overruling in People vs. Mapa.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.