People vs. Jabinal

Facts

·         Respondent appealed from the judgment of the MTC Batangas finding him guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition he contested the validity of his conviction based on a retroactive application of the ruling in People v. Mapa.

·         Respondent was appointed 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.

·         Respondent alleged that at the time of his appointments the prevailing doctrines are Macarandang and Lucero doctrine.

·         In Macarandang it was held that"peace officers" are exempted from the requirements relating to the issuance of license to possess firearms.

·         While Lucero doctrine provides that the granting of the temporary use of the firearm to the accused was a necessary means to carry out the lawful purpose of the battalion commander and must be deemed incident to or necessarily included in the duty and power of said military commander to effect the capture of a Huk leader.

·         Respondent and OSG alleged that the decision held in Mapa Case is of no applicability in this case

Issue

·         W/N the appellant should be acquitted on the basis of Our rulings in Macarandang and Lucero, or should his conviction stand in view of the complete reversal of the Macarandang and Lucero doctrine in Mapa case?

Ruling

·         The SC held that the decision in People v. Mapa reversing the Macarandang and Lucero doctrines came only in 1967, it has no proper application in this case.

·         Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system in the Philippines.

·         The doctrine laid down in Lucero and Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence, of the law, of the land, at the time appellant was found by possession of the firearm in question and when he was 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.

·         Petitioner incurred no criminal liability at the time of the commission of the crime since the prevailing doctrine then were the doctrines of Macarandang and Lucero