Facts:

The case involves Balbino Villareal as the defendant and appellant against the United States as the plaintiff and appellee. The events leading to the case occurred in the Philippines, where Villareal was charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon, specifically a dagger or sharp-pointed knife with an 8-inch blade. The weapon was found concealed in a leather sheath attached to his belt, hidden from public view inside his trousers. The lower court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish Villareal's guilt under Section 26 of Act No. 1780, which penalizes the carrying of concealed weapons. Villareal's counsel contended that the statute was in violation of Section 5 of the Philippine Bill of Rights, arguing that it deprived individuals of their property rights and denied equal protection under the law by allowing some individuals to carry firear...

Facts:

1. Offense Committed: The appellant, Balbino Villareal, was convicted of carrying a concealed deadly weapon, specifically a dagger or sharp-pointed knife with an 8-inch blade.
2. Manner of Concealment: The weapon was carried in a leather sheath attached to a belt strapped around his body, hidden inside his trousers on his left hip.
3. Legal Basis: The offense was defined and penalized under Section 26 of Act No. 1780.
4. Defense Argument: Counsel for the appellant argued that the statute penalizing concealed weapons violated the Philippine Bill of Rights, specifically the provisions prohibiting deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process and denying equal protection of the laws.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Police Power: The state has the authority to regulate the use of deadly weapons to suppress crime and ensure public safety. This includes prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, as such regulations are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
2. Constitutional Guarantees: The Philippine Bill of Rights does not prohibit reasonable regulations on the use of property, including weapons, provided such regulations serve the public interest.
3. Equal Protection: The licensing system for firearms is a general regulation applicable to all and does not inherently deny equal protection. Any misuse or errors in administration do not render the law itself unconstitutional.
4. Historical and Legal Precedent: Similar regulations on weapons have been upheld in both English and American jurisprudence, affirming the state's authority to regulate their use in the interest of public welfare.