G.R. No. 265123 - People vs. Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 265123)

Factual Background

Arresting officers testified that they were approached by persons who reported an attempted robbery allegedly committed by respondent, whereupon the officers arrested respondent and observed a knife tucked at his waist. An Information dated March 19, 2019 charged respondent with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 for having "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously carry[ed] 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."

MeTC Proceedings

Respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information asserting that the Information failed to allege that the carrying was in furtherance of, or in connection with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder, and that Presidential Decree No. 9 and its amendatory law B.P. Blg. 6 had ceased to have force. The Metropolitan Trial Court granted the Motion to Quash in its April 25, 2019 Resolution, reasoning that B.P. Blg. 6 is amendatory to P.D. No. 9 and that the amended provision must still be read to include the two essential elements identified in prior jurisprudence; the MeTC quashed the Information without prejudice to filing a correct Information and denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration in its May 2, 2019 Resolution.

RTC Proceedings

The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court contending that B.P. Blg. 6 constituted a separate and distinct statute that removed the second element identified in prior cases and that the MeTC should have afforded the prosecution an opportunity to amend rather than quash. The RTC granted the petition, set aside the MeTC Resolutions, and found that the legislature had only reduced the penalty through B.P. Blg. 6, that the offenses remained viable despite changed political circumstances, and that the legislative intent was to make possession outside the residence malum prohibitum except where the items were used as necessary tools or in lawful activity; the RTC ordered immediate reinstatement of the case on the active docket.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC Resolutions. The CA emphasized the title and text of B.P. Blg. 6, holding that it was amendatory of P.D. No. 9 and therefore did not purport to eliminate an essential element of the offense; the CA concluded that, consistent with the single-subject rule and legislative intent, an Information that omitted the allegation that the carrying was in furtherance of, or in connection with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder was defective and properly quashed.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether B.P. Blg. 6 removed the requirement, articulated in People v. Purisima and reaffirmed in People v. Lasanas, that an Information for unlawful carrying outside the residence must allege that the carrying was in furtherance of, or in connection with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder; and whether the MeTC erred in quashing the Information without ordering amendment rather than affording the prosecution an opportunity to correct defects.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that B.P. Blg. 6 is an amendatory law to P.D. No. 9 and must be read in conjunction with the original decree. The Court reiterated the two-element formulation set out in People v. Purisima and applied in People v. Lasanas, namely: first, the carrying outside one’s residence of a bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. Because the Information did not allege the second element, the Court held that the facts charged did not constitute a punishable offense under the law as construed, and the MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court examined the text of Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 6 and the relevant preamble and Paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9, and concluded that B.P. Blg. 6 merely amended examples, reduced penalties, and added a limited exception for pursuit of a lawful activity, without supplanting the essential elements previously identified by the Court. The Court relied on the prior En Banc rulings in People v. Purisima and People v. Lasanas, which had construed Paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9 to require proof that the carrying was connected with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder; the Court found no legislative intent in B.P. Blg. 6 to abrogate that second element or to create a new, distinct offense independent of P.D. No. 9. Accordingly, the Court reaffirmed the two-element test and applied it to conclude the Information was fatally defective.

Amendment and Procedural Rules

The Court addressed the prosecution’s contention that the MeTC should have afforded an opportunity to amend, and clarified the interplay of Rule 117, Section 4 and Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. The Court explained that when a motion to quash based on failure to allege that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is filed before plea, the prosecution may, without leave of court, amend the Information on its own initiative; an order of the court is only required when amendment is sought after plea or during trial. Because respondent filed a motion to quash before entering a plea, the prosecution had the means to amend the Information without a court order and therefore could not shift responsibility to the court; the MeTC properly quashed the defective Information without prejudice to filing a new Information charging the correct offense, subject to prescription.

Doctrinal Takeaway

The Court announced for the guidance of the bench and bar that the elements of the offense under P.D. No. 9, as amended by B.P. Blg. 6, are twofold: the physical act of carrying a specified weapon outside one’s residence not used as a necessary tool of livelihood, and the requisite motivation or nexus to subv

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 265123)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines was the petitioner in the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez was the respondent charged in an Information for violation of B.P. Blg. 6.
The petition assailed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which had reversed the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the Metropolitan Trial Court Resolutions quashing the Information.
The case reached this Court by way of review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals' rulings affirming the MeTC quashal.

Key Factual Allegations

Arresting officers testified that they were approached by persons who reported an alleged attempted robbery by respondent.
During the arrest, one officer felt and saw a knife tucked in respondent’s waist.
The Information charged respondent with unlawfully carrying outside his residence a bladed weapon not being used as a necessary tool or implement to earn a livelihood, nor used in connection therewith.

Procedural History

The Metropolitan Trial Court granted respondent’s Motion to Quash the Information in Resolutions dated April 25, 2019 and May 2, 2019.
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court which set aside the MeTC Resolutions and ordered reinstatement of the case.
Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC Resolutions quashing the Information.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to this Court.

Issues Presented

Whether B.P. Blg. 6 removed the second element identified in P.D. No. 9 so that mere carrying outside one’s residence became punishable without alleging connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
Whether the MeTC erred in quashing the Information without ordering amendment.
Whether B.P. Blg. 6 is a separate substantive law or an amendatory provision to P.D. No. 9.

Contentions

The prosecution contended that B.P. Blg. 6 is distinct from P.D. No. 9 and does not require the prosecution to allege that carrying was in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
The prosecution further contended that the MeTC should have afforded it the opportunity to amend the Information instead of quashing it.
Respondent contended that the Information failed to allege the second essential element identified in People v. Purisima and alternatively argued that P.D. No. 9 and B.P. Blg. 6 had ceased to have legal force because the raison d’être for those laws (martial law) had ended.

Statutory Framework

P.D. No. 9 originally prohibited carrying outside the residence certain bladed, pointed, or blunt weapons except when used as necessary tools to earn a livelihood and while being used in connection therewith, and its preamble referenced Proclamation No. 1081.
B.P. Blg. 6 amended paragraph three of P.D. No. 9 by changing examples of weapons, reducing penalties to imprisonment of not less than one month