Omega, Alfie Luzana

1. People of the Philippines vs. Tayco and Francisco vs. Court of Appeals
Article 91of the Revised Penal Code provides that the period of prescription
shall commence to run from the day on which the crime was discovered by the offended
party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information and shall commence o run agai when such proceedings
term,inate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or aee unjustifiably
stoppred for any reason not imputable to him. A stray decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Peope vs. Tayco (73 Phil 509) held that the complaint or information referred
to in the the above mentioned provision which interrupts the running of the period is that
which is filed in the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the
offended party in the fiscals office.
Thereafter, the Court in Francisco vs. Court of Appeals (207 phil 471) clarified
that the filing of the complaint with the fiscals office also suspends the running of the
prescriptive period of a crime.

2.
People of the Philippines v. Moro MacarandangCase No. 211G.R. No.
L-12088 (December 23, 1959)Chapter II, Page 69, Footnote No.87FACTS:
Defendant was accused and convicted of illegal possession of firearms inLanao.
Defendant,admitting the ownership and possession of thefirearm andammunitions,
invokes as his legal

-People vs mapa
Facts:
Mario M. Mapa was charged for illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition in an information dated 14 August 1962 in
violation of Section 878 of the Revise Administrative Code in connection with Section
2692 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by CA 56
andas further amended by RA 4 (home-maderevolver (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 on ground of being a secret agent
of Governor Feliciano Leviste of Batangas. 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 a secret agent dulyappointed and qualified as such of the
governor is exempt from the requirement of having alicense of firearm
eld:
The law is explicit that it is unlawful for any person to possess any firearm,
detachedparts of firearms or ammunition therefor, or anyinstrument or implement used
or intended to beused in the manufacture of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition
(Sec 878 RA 4 of the
RAC)
except when such firearms are inpossession of such public officials and
publicservants for use in the performance
of their official duties; as those firearms andammunitions which are regularly and lawfull
yissued to officers, soldiers, sailors or
marines,the Philippines Constabulary, guards in theemployment of the Bureau of
Prisons,
municipalpolice, provincial governors, lieutenantgovernors, provincial treasurers, munici
paltreasurers, municipal mayors, and guards of provincial prisoners and jails
(Sec 879)
It is thefirst and fundamental duty of courts to apply thelaw; Construction and
interpretation come onlyafter it has been demonstrated that application isimpossible or
inadequate without them. The lawcannot be any clearer, there being no provisionmade
for a secret agent.Reliance in the decision in People v.Macarandang is misplaced, and
the case nolonger speaks with authority to the extent thatthe present decision conflicts
with. It may benote that in People v. Macarandang, a
secretagent was acquitted on appeal on theassumption that the appointment of the
accusedas 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 bysection 879, Thus, in the present case,ther
efore, the conviction must stand.The Supreme Court affirmed