People vs Mapa G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967 FACTS: People, plaintiff-appellee v. Mapa, defendant-appellant Secret Agent: Mario Mapa Governor: Hon. Feliciano Leviste of Batangas (dated June 2, 1962) Violation: • Illegal possession of firearm and ammunition (Section 878 of the Revise Administrative Code in connection with Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code) (home-made revolver (Paltik), Cal. 22, without serial number, with six (6) rounds of ammunition, without first having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from the corresponding authorities • Accused admits to possession of firearm but contends that on ground of being a secret agent of Governor Feliciano Leviste of Batangas is a sufficient defense to a prosecution to exempt him for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. • Mapa also contends that in the case of People v. Macarandang is speaks with authority to the extent that the present decision conflicts with. In the case of People v. Macarandang, a secret agent was acquitted crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. • On 27 November 1963, the lower court rendered a decision convicting the accused of the crime and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and one day to two years. As the appeal involves a question of law, it was elevated to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment to and the holding of the position of a secret agent to the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. RULING NO. No further interpretation or construction needed because the provision is clear. The law is explicit 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 (Sec 878 RAC). The law cannot be any clearer, there being no provision made for a secret agent. The Law provides Sec. 878. Unlawful manufacture, dealing in acquisition, disposition, or possession of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition therefor, or instruments or implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. — Save as allowable under this article it shall be unlawful for any person to import, manufacture, deal in, receive, acquire, buy, sell, dispose of, or 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. Sec 879. Exemption as to firearms and ammunition used by military and naval forces or by peace officers. This article shall not apply to firearms and ammunition regularly and lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines of the United States Army and Navy, 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, when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public servants for use in the performance of their official duties. It is the first and fundamental duty of courts to apply the law; Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. But in this case, there is no need for further interpretation of the law. • Reliance in the decision in People v. Macarandang is misplaced, and the case no longer speaks with authority. It maybe noted that in People v. Macarandang, a secret agent was acquitted on appeal on the assumption that the appointment of the accused as a secret agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaigns and detection of crimes sufficiently put him within the category of a ‘peace officer’ equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered by section 879, Thus, in the present case, therefore, the conviction must stand. Therefore, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the appealed judgment.