The People of The Philippines vs.

Mario Mapa
G.R. No. L-22301. August 30, 1967
Fernando, J:

Topic:
Duty of courts to apply the law. When a law should be construed and interpreted.
Facts:
Mario Mapa was found in possession of an unlicensed pistol cal. 22 revolver with six rounds of ammunition. Accused
admits to possession of the firearm and believes he is exempted from liability being a secret agent of the Governor of
Batangas. On 27 November 1963, the lower court found the accused guilty of the illegal possession of firearms and sentenced
him to imprisonment for one year and one day to two years. The appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, the case being a
question of law.
Issue:
Whether a secret agent to a governor is exempted from the crime of illegal possession of firearms.
Decision:
No. A secret agent cannot be exempted from liability since such persons are not explicitly mentioned to be exempt.
Ratio:
Rules in statutory construction state that construction and interpretation shall only be resorted to when it would be
impossible to apply the law without them. The law provides that it is 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. 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. Here, the courts can only apply the law.
The ruling in People v. Macarandang that was relied upon placed a secret agent within the category of a peace officer.
However, the SC overturned this previous ruling seeing as it is “not within the power of the court to set aside the clear and
explicit mandate of a statutory provision.”