G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982
PEDRO ENTERA and IGNACIO MONTES, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, Patrolmen Ignacio Montes and Pedro Entera of the Cebu City Police, were directed via a memorandum from the Cebu City Mayor to proceed to Surigao to investigate the employment of security guards and to reinforce the security of Senator Sergio Osmeña, Jr. in Dapa, Surigao del Norte. Upon arrival in Surigao on November 2, 1969, they were apprehended by PC soldiers. After revealing their identities, they were released but their service firearms and ammunition were confiscated for allegedly having no proper papers.
An information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition was filed against them before the Municipal Court of Surigao. They were convicted for carrying their firearms outside Cebu City without a special permit from the Provincial Commander. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction, ruling that the Mayor’s order to operate in Surigao was unlawful as it was beyond his jurisdiction, and thus petitioners were not in the performance of their official duties when apprehended.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty of illegal possession of firearms for carrying their service firearms outside their territorial jurisdiction without a special permit.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the petitioners. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit exception under Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides that the prohibition on possession does not apply to firearms lawfully issued to municipal police “for use in the performance of their official duties.” The Court emphasized that the law does not contain any territorial restriction limiting a peace officer’s lawful possession of his service firearm solely within the boundaries of his own municipality or city.
The performance of official duty, not geographical location, is the determining legal factor. The Court reasoned that a contrary interpretation would lead to absurd and impractical consequences, such as penalizing an officer in hot pursuit of a criminal who crosses a municipal boundary or preventing an officer from providing security for a local official on official travel outside the jurisdiction. Since there was no specific law or rule penalizing the act of carrying a service firearm outside one’s territorial jurisdiction, convicting the petitioners for an offense not specifically defined would violate the principle of legality. Their presence in Surigao was in direct, albeit potentially irregular, compliance with a superior’s order, and the legality of that order was a separate issue not constituting a crime of illegal possession by the subordinates.