People vs.

Jabinal
February 27, 1974
Facts:
On September 5, 1964, the accused was found to be in possession of a revover
without the re!uisite icense or permit" #e caimed to be entited to e$oneration because,
athou%h he had no icense or permit, he had appointments as Secret &%ent from the
'rovincia (overnor of )atan%as and as *on+dentia &%ent from the '* 'rovincia
*ommander, and the said appointments e$pressy carried with them the authority to
possess and carry the said +rearm" ,he accused further contended that in view of his
appointments, he was entited to ac!uitta on the basis of the Supreme *ourt-s decisions in
'eope vs" .acarandan% and in 'eope vs" /ucero"
,he tria court found the accused criminay iabe for ie%a possession of +rearm and
ammunition on the %round that the ruin%s in .acarandan%0 and in /ucero0 were reversed
and abandoned in 'eope vs" .apa00"
,he case was eevated to the Supreme *ourt"
Issue:
1hether or not the appeant shoud be ac!uitted on the basis of the Supreme *ourt-s
ruin%s in the cases of .acarandan% and of /ucero"
Ruling:
,he appeant was ac!uitted"
2ecisions of the Supreme *ourt, athou%h in themseves not aws, are nevertheess
evidence of what the aw means3 this is the reason why &rtice 4 of the 5ew *ivi *ode
provides that, 67udicia decisions appyin% and interpretin% the aws or the constitution sha
form part of the e%a system"8 ,he interpretation upon a aw by the Supreme *ourt
constitutes in a way a part of the aw as of the date the aw was ori%inay passed, since the
court-s construction merey estabishes the contemporaneous e%isative intent that the aw
thus construed intends to e9ectuate" ,he setted rue supported by numerous authorities is
a restatement of the e%a ma$im legis interpretatio legis vim obtinetthe interpretation
paced upon the written aw by a competent court has the force of aw" ,he doctrine aid
down in /ucero and in .acarandan% was part of the :urisprudence, hence, of the aw of the
and, at the time appeant was found in possession of the +rearm and when he was
arrai%ned by the tria court" ;t is true that the doctrine was overrued in .apa case in 1967,
but when a doctrine of the Supreme *ourt is overrued and a di9erent view is adopted, the
new doctrine shoud be appied prospectivey, and shoud not appy to parties who had reied
on the od doctrine and acted on the faith thereof"
*onsiderin% that the appeant possessed a +rearm pursuant to the prevaiin%
doctrine enunciated in .acarandan% and in /ucero, under which no crimina iabiity woud
attach to his possession of said +rearm, the appeant shoud be absoved" ,he appeant
may not be punished for an act which at the time it was done was hed not to be punishabe"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
0,he accused were ac!uitted for throu%h their appointment as con+dentia=secret a%ent they
were deemed to be 6peace o>cers8" 'eace o>cers had the privie%e of carryin% +rearms
without icense"
00.apa was convicted athou%h he was a secret=con+dentia a%ent" ,he court rued that the
aw did not e$picity provide that secret=con+dentia a%ents are amon% those who are
e$empted from ac!uirin% a icense to carry a +rearm"