Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    People V Jabinal

    Uploaded by

    DNAA
    Jabinal was found in possession of a revolver in 1964 without a license. He claimed he was entitled to an acquittal based on two previous Supreme Court rulings from 1958 and 1959. However, the trial court convicted him based on a 1968 ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier rulings formed part of the law when Jabinal possessed the firearm. When a new doctrine is adopted, it should only apply prospectively, not to those who relied on the previous interpretation. Therefore, Jabinal should be acquitted based on the law at the time of his possession of the revolver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Jabinal

    Uploaded by

    DNAA
    35 views1 page
    Jabinal was found in possession of a revolver in 1964 without a license. He claimed he was entitled to an acquittal based on two previous Supreme Court rulings from 1958 and 1959. However, the trial court convicted him based on a 1968 ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier rulings formed part of the law when Jabinal possessed the firearm. When a new doctrine is adopted, it should only apply prospectively, not to those who relied on the previous interpretation. Therefore, Jabinal should be acquitted based on the law at the time of his possession of the revolver.

    Original Description:

    Civil law digest

    Original Title

    People v Jabinal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jabinal was found in possession of a revolver in 1964 without a license. He claimed he was entitled to an acquittal based on two previous Supreme Court rulings from 1958 and 1959. However, the trial court convicted him based on a 1968 ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier rulings formed part of the law when Jabinal possessed the firearm. When a new doctrine is adopted, it should only apply prospectively, not to those who relied on the previous interpretation. Therefore, Jabinal should be acquitted based on the law at the time of his possession of the revolver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views1 page

    People V Jabinal

    Uploaded by

    DNAA
    Jabinal was found in possession of a revolver in 1964 without a license. He claimed he was entitled to an acquittal based on two previous Supreme Court rulings from 1958 and 1959. However, the trial court convicted him based on a 1968 ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that the earlier rulings formed part of the law when Jabinal possessed the firearm. When a new doctrine is adopted, it should only apply prospectively, not to those who relied on the previous interpretation. Therefore, Jabinal should be acquitted based on the law at the time of his possession of the revolver.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE v. JABINAL G.R. No. L-30061, SECOND DIVISION, February 27, 1974, Antonio, J.

    Doctrine Under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or
    the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system. . ." The interpretation upon a law by this Court
    constitutes, in a way, a part of the law as of the date that law was originally passed, since this Court's
    construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the law thus construed
    intends to effectuate. 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.

    FACTS: In 1964, Jabinal was found to be in possession of a revolver and the corresponding ammunition
    without the required license or permit. However, he claimed to be entitled to exoneration because,
    although he had no license or permit, he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the Provinical
    Governor of Batangas in 1962 and as Confidential Agent from the PC Provincial Commander in 1964 and
    the said appointments expressly carried with them the authority to possess and carry the firearm in
    question. Jabinal argued that he should be entitled to acquittal based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in
    the cases of People v. Macarandang(1959)and People v. Lucero(1958). However, the trial court
    convicted him of the crime charged based on the SC’s 1968 ruling in People v. Mapa.

    ISSUE: Whether or norJabinal should be acquitted based on the rulings in People v. Macarandang and
    People v. Lucero. (YES)

    RULING: Decisions of this Court, although in themselves not laws, are nevertheless evidence of what the
    laws mean, and this is the reason why under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, "Judicial decisions applying
    or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system. . ." The interpretation
    upon a law by this Court constitutes, in a way, a part of the law as of the date that law was originally
    passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that
    the law thus construed intends to effectuate. 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. This is especially true in the construction and
    application of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen
    for the guidance of society. - In Possession of a revolver WIN Jabinal should be acquitted

    You might also like