Case Digest (G.R. No. 265123)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez, G.R. No. 265123, July 29, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.The criminal case arose after Makati arresting officers were approached by bystanders who alleged that Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez had attempted a robbery; during the arrest an officer felt and saw a knife tucked at Bercadez’s waist. Bercadez was charged by information dated March 19, 2019 with violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6) for “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously carry[ing] outside of his residence, a bladed weapon (knife) not being used as a necessary tool or implement to earn a livelihood, nor used in connection therewith.”
Before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 64, Bercadez moved to quash the information on April 4, 2019, arguing (1) the information failed to allege that the carrying was in furtherance of or connected with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder and (2) that Presidential Decree No. 9 (P.D. No. 9) and its policy basis had ceased to have force. The MeTC granted the motion and quashed the information in its April 25, 2019 Resolution and denied the prosecution’s reconsideration in its May 2, 2019 Resolution.
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found that the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion, set aside the MeTC Resolutions and ordered immediate reinstatement of the case (RTC Decision, March 23, 2020). Bercadez sought relief with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (Fifth Division) reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC Resolutions, reasoning that B.P. Blg. 6 is an amendatory law to P.D. No. 9 and that the information lacked the second essential element identified in People v. Purisima and People v. Lasanas (CA Decision, Aug. 31, 2022; Resolution Jan. 5, 2023 denying reconsideration).
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did B.P. Blg. 6 eliminate the second element identified in P.D. No. 9 (that the carrying be in furtherance of, or in connection with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder), so that mere carrying outside the residence is punishable?
- Did the MeTC err in quashing the information without first ordering the prosec...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)