Case Digest (G.R. No. 208185) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The People of the Philippines v. Hon. Judge Amante P. Purisima et al., consolidated with related petitions against Judges Maximo A. Maceren and Wenceslao M. Polo in November 1978, the City and Provincial Fiscals filed twenty-six informations charging respondents with illegal possession of deadly weapon under Paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 9. The informations alleged that on various dates in 1974–1977 in Manila and Samar, each accused wilfully, unlawfully, and knowingly carried outside his home bladed or pointed instruments—carving knives, ice picks, bolos, socyatan—that were not used as necessary tools for livelihood. On motions to quash, the trial judges dismissed or quashed the informations on the ground that they omitted the essential allegation that the carrying was in furtherance of or connected with subversion, insurrection, organized lawlessness, or public disorder as contemplated by PD No. 9, and ordered the immediate release of the accused where held.Issues:
Case Digest (G.R. No. 208185) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Consolidation and Parties
- Twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines, represented by the City Fiscal of Manila, the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General.
- Three Courts of First Instance (CFI) involved:
- CFI of Manila, Branch VII (Judge Amante P. Purisima) – 17 petitions (G.R. L-42050-66).
- CFI of Manila, Branch XVIII (Judge Maximo A. Maceren) – 8 petitions (G.R. L-46229-32; L-46313-16).
- CFI of Samar (Judge Wenceslao M. Polo) – 1 petition (G.R. L-46997).
- Informations Filed for Violation of PD No. 9, §3
- Common allegations: accused “willfully, unlawfully and knowingly” carried outside residence a bladed or pointed weapon (e.g., carving knife, ice pick, “socyatan”), not used as a necessary tool to earn a livelihood.
- Caption and body of each Information cited “Violation of paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 9 (PD 9) of Proclamation 1081,” with variations only in accused’s name, date, place, and weapon.
- Motions to Quash and Trial Court Orders
- Accused moved to quash on ground that Informations failed to allege the essential element of connection with subversion, insurrection, organized lawlessness or public disorder.
- Judge Purisima (Manila, Branch VII) quashed for lack of allegation that possession was “for the purpose of abetting or in furtherance” of conditions justifying PD 9 enforcement.
- Judge Maceren (Manila, Branch XVIII) quashed, holding that PD 9 §3 penalizes only weapons carried in furtherance of insurrection, rebellion, or lawless violence; mere carrying outside residence is not unlawful.
- Judge Polo (Samar) quashed, reasoning that PD 9 §3 targets possession of deadly weapons connected with subversion, rebellion or public disorder, not ordinary self-defense or farm use.
Issues:
- Whether the Informations filed under PD No. 9, §3, sufficiently allege all essential elements of the offense.
- What are the elements of illegal possession of a deadly weapon under PD No. 9, §3, and must they be expressly alleged?
- Whether trial courts properly dismissed or quashed the Informations for failure to state a punishable offense.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)