Title
Abril vs. People
Case
G.R. No. L-46265
Decision Date
Feb 28, 1978
Dominador Abril acquitted of illegal possession of a deadly weapon under Presidential Decree No. 9; bolo used in self-defense during personal altercation, lacking political or criminal intent.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-46265)

Facts:

  1. Charges and Allegations

    • Dominador Abril was charged with illegal possession of a deadly weapon under Presidential Decree No. 9. The information alleged that on May 21, 1975, in Burauen, Leyte, Abril willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously carried and concealed a bladed deadly weapon (a bolo) without a permit or authority, and the weapon was not used as a necessary tool or implement for earning a livelihood.
  2. Trial Court Proceedings

    • The case was tried jointly with Criminal Case No. Bn-1076 for attempted homicide. The trial court convicted Abril in both cases. In Criminal Case No. Bn-1099, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 5 years as minimum to 6 years and 8 months as maximum for violating Presidential Decree No. 9.
  3. Petitioner’s Defense

    • Abril claimed that the bolo was left in his barber shop by his cousin, Sabino Abril, and he only picked it up when Esteban Venezuela threatened and attacked him. He used the bolo to chase Venezuela away after being provoked and physically assaulted.
  4. Trial Court’s Findings

    • The trial court found Abril’s account credible but convicted him under Presidential Decree No. 9, stating that the decree aimed to suppress lawless violence and criminality, regardless of political motives.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Application of Presidential Decree No. 9

    • Presidential Decree No. 9 was issued to address political unrest, rebellion, and lawless violence during the martial law period. However, the Court found that Abril’s actions were not politically motivated or connected to the objectives of the decree. His use of the bolo was a reaction to a personal threat and not part of any broader criminal or subversive activity.
  2. Intent and Circumstances of Possession

    • The Court emphasized that Abril did not intentionally carry or conceal the bolo. He only picked it up during a confrontation with Esteban Venezuela, who had provoked and attacked him. The bolo was not used as a weapon of aggression but as a means of self-defense and to repel an immediate threat.
  3. Double Jeopardy and Proportionality

    • Abril had already been convicted and fined for threatening another with a weapon under Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code. Convicting him again under Presidential Decree No. 9 for the same incident would be disproportionate and unjust, as his actions did not align with the decree’s intent.
  4. Legal Interpretation

    • The Court interpreted Presidential Decree No. 9 in light of its purpose and context, concluding that it was not intended to penalize individuals for incidental or defensive use of weapons in personal altercations unrelated to political unrest or lawless violence.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.