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 Summary (G.R. No. L-30061)

Facts of the Case

On September 5, 1964, at about 9:00 p.m. in the Poblacion of Batangas, Jose Jabinal was found in possession of a German-made .22-caliber ROHM revolver (SN RG-8) with one live round and four empty shells, without securing a license or permit as required by law. He was arraigned on September 11, 1964, pleaded not guilty, and admitted possession during trial but justified it on the basis of official appointments.

Appointments and Claimed Authority

  1. Appointment as Secret Agent (December 10, 1962): Issued by Governor Feliciano Leviste to detect crimes and preserve peace in Batangas; expressly granted the right to bear the specified .22-caliber revolver.
  2. Appointment as Confidential Agent (March 15, 1964): Issued by the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in Batangas to furnish intelligence on smuggling, loose firearms, subversives, and related matters; temporarily authorized possession of the same revolver for personal protection while on duty.

Trial Court Findings

The Municipal Court of Batangas (Decision dated December 27, 1968) acknowledged the validity of both appointments and the express firearm authority therein but convicted the appellant for illegal possession. It ruled that earlier Supreme Court decisions granting exemption to “secret agents” had been reversed by People vs. Mapa (1967), and only regarded the appointments as mitigating circumstances. Appellant received an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years.

Jurisprudence on Firearm Possession Exemptions

• Revised Administrative Code §878 (as amended) makes unlawful the possession of firearms or ammunition without specific allowance.
• §879 exempts “firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued” to certain public officers (e.g., armed forces, constabulary, municipal police, provincial governors) when used in official duties.
• No explicit exemption exists for “secret agents” or similar confidential roles.

Doctrine from Macarandang and Lucero

• People vs. Macarandang (1959): Held that a Secret Agent appointed by a provincial governor qualified as a “peace officer” under §879 and thus was exempt from license requirements when bearing arms for official duties.
• People vs. Lucero (1958): Recognized that temporary use of firearms by military agents was incident to lawful duties and exempted under military authority.

Overruling in People vs. Mapa

People vs. Mapa (1967) expressly abandoned Macarandang and implicitly Lucero, concluding that only those officers enumerated in §879 enjoy exemptions. It declared the statutory language “cannot be any clearer” in excluding secret or confidential agents, thereby upholding convictions for unlicensed firearm possession despite prior appointments.

Doctrine on Prospective Application

Under Article 8 of the Civil Co

...continue reading

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