People vs. Jabinal.docx

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE JABINAL G.R. No. L-30061 February 27, 1974 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/feb1974/gr_l_30061_1974.html (When judicial interpretation may be set aside) Facts: Appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Batangas, in Criminal Case No. 889, finding the accused guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition which raises in issue the validity of his conviction based on a retroactive application of our ruling in People vs. Mapa. The accused admitted that on Sep. 5, 1964, he was in possession of the revolver and the ammunition described in the complaint, without the requisite license or permit. He, however, claimed to be entitled to exoneration because, although he had no license or permit, he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the Provincial Governor of Batangas and an appointment as Confidential Agent from the PC Provincial Commander, and the said appointments expressly carried with them the authority to possess and carry the firearm in question. The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made under Sec. 879 of the Revised Administrative Code for a secret agent. As such he is not exempt. The accused contended before the court a quo that in view of his above-mentioned appointments as Secret Agent and Confidential Agent, with authority to possess the firearm subject matter of the prosecution, he was entitled to acquittal on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in People vs. Macarandang. Issue: Whether or not appellant shall be acquitted on the basis of our rulings in Macarandang. Held: Yes. Judgement appealed from is reversed. Appellant is acquitted. Ratio: The doctrine laid down in Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence of the law, of the land, at the time appellant was found in possession of the firearm in question and when he arraigned by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in the Mapa case in 1967, but when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. It follows, therefore, that considering that appellant conferred his appointments as Secret Agent and Confidential Agent and authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated in Macarandang, under which no criminal liability would attach to his possession of said firearm in spite of the absence of a license and permit therefor, appellant must be absolved. Certainly, appellant may not be punished for an act which at the time it was done was held not to be punishable.

Short Analysis: The case of People vs. Mapa expressly abandoned the Macarandang doctrine in 1967, the court then expressly abandoned the decision in People vs. Mapa in deciding the case in People vs. Jabinal because the court said that case was arraigned in September 1964 and therefore the Macarandang doctrine still applies in the case of People vs. Jabinal. It may seem unfair for Mapa because he was convicted and the Macanrandang doctrine was not applied to his case. Therefore, the Supreme Court may, in an appropriate case, change or overrule its previous construction. Judicial rulings have no retroactive effect.