People v. Hon. Judge Purisima, et. al.
GR No. 42050-66
November 20, 1978
Facts:
These twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of
the Philippines represented, respectively, by the Office of the City
Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and
joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this one
Decision as they involve one basic question of law.
The respondent-courts are: CFI of Manila Branches VII and XVIII
and CFI of Samar.
Several information was filed before the abovementioned courts
charging the accused of Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon in
violation of Presidential Decree No. 09. The counsel of the
defense filed motions to quash the said information after which
the respondent-courts passed their own orders quashing the said
information on common ground that the information did not
allege facts constituting an offense penalized until PD No. 09 for
failure to state an essential element of the crime, which is, that
the carrying outside of the accused’s residence of a bladed,
pointed, or blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of,
connected with, or related to subversion, insurrection, or
rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder.
The respondent courts stand that PD No. 09 should be read in the
context of Proclamation 1081 (Martial Law) which seeks to
maintain law and order in the country as well as the prevention
and suppression of all forms of lawless violence. The non-
inclusion of the aforementioned element may not be distinguished
from other legislation related to the illegal possession of deadly
weapons. Judge Purisima, in particular, reasoned that the
information must allege that the purpose of possession of the
weapon was intended for the purposes of abetting the conditions
of criminality, organized lawlessness, public disorder. The
petitioners said that the purpose of subversion is not necessary in
this regard because the prohibited act is basically a malum
prohibitum or is an action or conduct that is prohibited by virtue
of a statute. The City Fiscal also added in cases of statutory
offenses, the intent is immaterial and that the commission of the
act is voluntary is enough.
Some of the cases for this consolidated Petition for review are as
follows:
The undersigned accuses PORFIRIO CANDELOSAS Y DURAN of a
violation of paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 9 of
Proclamation 1081, committed as follows:
That on or about the 14th day of December, 1974, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and
under his custody and control one (1) carving knife with a blade
of 6-1/2 inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4 inches, or an
overall length of 11-3/4 inches, which the said accused carried
outside of his residence, the said weapon not being used as a tool
or implement necessary to earn his livelihood nor being used in
connection therewith.
---o0o---
The undersigned accuses REYNALDO LAQUI Y AQUINO of a
VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 3, PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 09 in
relation to Letter of Instruction No. 266 of the Chief Executive
dated April 1, 1975, committed as follows:
That on or about the 28th day of January, 1977, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly carry outside of his residence a bladed
and pointed weapon, to wit: an ice pick with an overall length of
about 8 1/2 inches, the same not being used as a necessary tool
or implement to earn his livelihood nor being used in connection
therewith.
---o0o---
The undersigned First Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Samar,
accuses PANCHITO REFUNCJON of the crime of ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF DEADLY WEAPON or VIOLATION OF PD NO. 9
issued by the President of the Philippines on Oct. 2, 1972,
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated Sept. 21 and 23, 1972,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of October, 1976, in the evening at
Barangay Barruz, Municipality of Matuginao, Province of Samar
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above named accused, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously carried with him outside of his residence a deadly
weapon called “socyatan”, an instrument which from its very
nature is no such as could be used as a necessary tool or
instrument to earn a livelihood, which act committed by the
accused is a Violation of Presidential Decree No. 09.
The respective judges in the exercise of their jurisdiction in
dismissing the charges against the accused.
Issue:
Is the information filed by the people sufficient in form and
substance to constitute the offense of “Illegal possession of
deadly weapon” penalized under Presidential Decree No. 09?
Ruling:
1. It is the constitutional right of any person who stands
charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
2. Under Sec. 5 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, for a complaint
or information to be sufficient, it must state the designation
of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. This is essential to
avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the
opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.
3. The supreme court says that the preamble of PD No. 09
states that the intention of such decree is to penalize the
acts which are related to Proc.1081 which aim to suppress
lawlessness, rebellion, subversive acts, and the like. While
the preamble is not a part of the statute, it implies the
intent and spirit of the decree. The preamble and whereas
clauses also enumerate the facts or events which justify the
promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions provided.
4. The Supreme Court held that petition for review is
DISMISSED and AFFIRMING the orders of respondent Judges
dismissing or quashing the Information concerned.
