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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 265123)

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

Arrest/alleged incident: on or about March 18, 2019.
Information filed: March 19, 2019.
MeTC resolutions quashing information: April 25, 2019 and May 2, 2019.
RTC decision granting petition for certiorari and setting aside MeTC resolutions: March 23, 2020.
CA decision reversing RTC and reinstating MeTC resolutions: August 31, 2022; CA resolution denying reconsideration: January 5, 2023.
Supreme Court decision (ponencia): July 29, 2024.

Applicable Law and Authorities

Primary statutory sources: Presidential Decree No. 9 (P.D. No. 9, paragraph 3) and Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6), which expressly amends paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9.
Rules of procedure: Rule 110 and Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (provisions on sufficiency of information, amendment of complaint/information, and motions to quash).
Constitutional reference: 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 14(2) — right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation).
Controlling jurisprudence cited: People v. Purisima (176 Phil. 186, 1978), People v. Lasanas (236 Phil. 27, 1987), Buella v. People (G.R. No. 244027, April 11, 2023), and Comendador v. De Villa (277 Phil. 106, 1991).

Factual Background

Arresting officers testified they were informed by bystanders that respondent allegedly attempted robbery. During the arrest, an officer felt and observed a knife tucked into respondent’s waist. Respondent was charged with illegal possession/carrying of a bladed weapon pursuant to B.P. Blg. 6 as an amendment to P.D. No. 9.

Accusation as Charged in the Information

The accusatory portion alleged that on or about March 18, 2019, in Makati City, respondent “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously [carried] 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,” and charged violation of B.P. Blg. 6.

Motion to Quash and Grounds Raised by Respondent

Respondent moved to quash the Information on two principal grounds: (1) the Information did not allege that the carrying was in furtherance of, or in connection with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder (the second element identified in Purisima); and (2) B.P. Blg. 6 and P.D. No. 9 have ceased to have legal force because the raison d’être of those laws (martial-law measures) no longer exists.

Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Rulings

The MeTC granted the motion to quash, reasoning that B.P. Blg. 6 is amendatory of P.D. No. 9 and must be read with it; therefore an Information for violation of the amended provision must allege the two essential elements articulated in Purisima, including the second element linking the carrying to subversion/rebellion/insurrection/related public disorder. Because the Information omitted the second element, the MeTC quashed the Information without prejudice to filing a correct Information.

Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision

The prosecution sought certiorari relief before the RTC. The RTC reversed the MeTC, holding: (1) B.P. Blg. 6 merely lowered the penalty and did not repeal P.D. No. 9; (2) changes in political climate do not render the offenses obsolete; (3) the Supreme Court’s prior rulings in Purisima and Lasanas were not directly controlling on the facts here; and (4) legislative intent behind B.P. Blg. 6 was to make possession outside the residence a malum prohibitum offense except when used as necessary tools. The RTC concluded that MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information and ordered reinstatement.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC resolutions. The CA emphasized B.P. Blg. 6’s title and text as evidence that the legislature intended to reduce the penalty for the crime defined by P.D. No. 9, not to create a new crime or eliminate an essential element. The CA held that if the legislature intended to remove the essential linkage element, that enactment would have constitutional problems (single-subject rule). Therefore, the CA found the Information defective for failing to allege the second element.

Supreme Court Petition and Parties’ Positions

The Office of the Solicitor General (on behalf of the People) petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that B.P. Blg. 6 removed the second element identified in Purisima. Respondent opposed the petition, maintaining the Information was defective and urging denial.

Supreme Court Holding (Ponencia)

The Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the CA. It held that B.P. Blg. 6 is an amendatory law that must be read in conjunction with P.D. No. 9; it did not intend to create a separate crime nor to eliminate the second element stated in Purisima and reiterated in Lasanas. Accordingly, the elements of the offense under P.D. No. 9, as amended by B.P. Blg. 6, remain twofold (carrying outside the residence of the specified weapon not used as a necessary tool for livelihood, and that the carrying was in furtherance of or connected with subversion/rebellion/insurrection/lawless violence/criminality/chaos/public disorder). Because the Information omitted the second element, it was fatally defective and properly quashed without prejudice to filing a correct Information subject to prescription.

Elements of the Offense (as Restated by the Court)

The Court reaffirmed the Purisima elements as applicable after amendment by B.P. Blg. 6:

Carrying outside one’s residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon not used as a necessary tool or implement for livelihood; and
That the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.

Application of Law to the Present Information

Applying those elements, the Court concluded the MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information. The Information failed to allege the second element required to render the conduct punishable under the amended decree; as such, the facts as alleged did not constitute the statutory offense.

Rules on Amendment and Why Quash Was Proper

The Court analyzed Rule 117, Section 4 and Rule 110, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. It explained that when a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense is filed before plea, the prosecution may amend the Information on its own, without leave of court. The MeTC correctly quashed the defective Information because the motion to quash was filed prior to plea and the prosecution had the independent ability (and responsibility) to amend the Information rather than seek a court-ordered opportunity to amend. The Cou

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 265123)

Case Caption, Court, and Date

Second Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines; G.R. No. 265123; Decision penned by Justice Lopez, J.; promulgated July 29, 2024.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 from the Office of the Solicitor General (petitioner) seeking review of Court of Appeals decisions.
Case originated from criminal proceedings in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Makati City, and passed through the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, to the Court of Appeals (CA), and thence to the Supreme Court.

Parties

Petitioner: People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in the Supreme Court petition.
Respondent/Accused: Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez (referred to in parts of the record as respondent or petitioner in lower courts).

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Relief sought by petitioner (People of the Philippines) in the Supreme Court: reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution reinstating MeTC rulings that quashed the Information against respondent.
Central legal contest: whether the Information charging violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6) was fatally defective for failing to allege an essential element traceable to Presidential Decree No. 9 (P.D. No. 9), and whether B.P. Blg. 6 effectively removed that essential element.

Factual Background as Alleged in the Record

Arresting officers testified at the MeTC that they were approached by people who informed them of an alleged attempted robbery by respondent, Ronnel Bercadez.
During the arrest, one officer felt and saw a knife tucked in respondent’s waist.
Information filed on or about March 18, 2019 in Makati City charged respondent with unlawfully and feloniously carrying outside his residence a bladed weapon (knife) “not being used as a necessary tool or implement to earn a livelihood, nor used in connection therewith,” alleging violation of B.P. Blg. 6.

Text of the Charging Instrument (Accusatory Portion)

The Information’s accusatory portion reads (as pleaded): “On or about 18th day of March 2019, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously carry 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. CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Date of the Information cited in the rollo: March 19, 2019 (document reference).

Motion to Quash — Grounds Advanced by Respondent

Respondent moved to quash the Information on two principal grounds:
- (1) The Information failed to allege that the alleged crime was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violation, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
- (2) Presidential Decree No. 9 and B.P. Blg. 6 lost legal force because their spirit—i.e., to strengthen and enforce the declaration of martial law by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos—had ceased.

MeTC Resolutions (April 25, 2019; May 2, 2019)

MeTC’s April 25, 2019 Resolution:
- Held that B.P. Blg. 6 is an amendatory statute to P.D. No. 9 and must be read together with it.
- Identified two essential elements inherited from P.D. No. 9 that must be alleged: (1) carrying outside one’s residence of a prohibited weapon not used as a necessary tool for livelihood or lawful activity; and (2) that the carrying was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
- Found the Information deficient for failing to allege the second element and granted the Motion to Quash without prejudice to filing the correct Information.
MeTC’s May 2, 2019 Resolution:
- Denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the quashal ruling.

Prosecution’s Contentions on Reconsideration and to the RTC

The prosecution argued before the MeTC and later to the RTC that:
- B.P. Blg. 6 is a separate and distinct law from P.D. No. 9, and thus violation of B.P. Blg. 6 need not allege the P.D. No. 9 second element concerning connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
- The MeTC should have given the prosecution an opportunity to amend the Information rather than quashing it outright.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling (Decision dated March 23, 2020; Order July 10, 2020)

The prosecution filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC contesting the MeTC’s quashal.
RTC Decision findings (summarized):
- First: The legislature did not expressly repeal or invalidate P.D. No. 9 but merely imposed a lower penalty via B.P. Blg. 6.
- Second: A different political climate does not render the offenses punishable under those laws obsolete.
- Third: Supreme Court rulings in People v. Judge Purisima and People v. Lasanas are not on all fours with the instant case (per the RTC).
- Fourth: The legislative intent behind B.P. Blg. 6 was to make possession of such weapons outside one’s residence illegal as malum prohibitum except where used as necessary tools to earn a livelihood or in pursuit of lawful activity.
RTC disposition:
- Found the MeTC to have committed grave abuse of discretion and granted the petition for certiorari, set aside MeTC Resolutions, ordered reinstatement of the criminal case on the active docket and for further proceedings.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) and CA Decision (August 31, 2022) and Resolution (Jan 5, 2023)

Bercadez appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
CA Decision emphasized:
- The title of B.P. Blg. 6—“An Act Reducing the Penalty for Illegal Possession of Bladed, Pointed or Blunt Weapons, and For Other Purposes, Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree Numbered Nine”—shows legislative intent to downgrade the penalty for the crime defined in P.D. No. 9, not to define a new crime.
- If the legislature intended to remove an essential element from P.D. No. 9, such change should have been struck as violative of the single-subject rule; therefore Congress did not and could not have intended to remove the second element.
- Concluded that the MeTC correctly quashed the Information for being defective for failing to allege that the possession was in furtherance of or connected with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.