Case Summary (G.R. No. L-42050-66)
Form and Substance of the Informations
Each Information charged the accused with knowingly carrying a specified dangerous weapon (e.g., carving knife, ice pick, socyatan) outside one’s residence “not being used as a necessary tool or implement to earn his livelihood.” The caption and body uniformly cited “Violation of Paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 9,” without any allegation that the carriage was intended to further subversive or lawless activities.
Trial Courts’ Grounds for Quashing
All three judges held that PD 9(3) criminalizes only the carriage of deadly weapons when done in furtherance of or connected with subversion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. Absent such an allegation, the Information failed to state a crime under PD 9(3). They also warned of potential abuse by law enforcement and the oppressive reach of a bare-act interpretation.
Legal Framework of Presidential Decree No. 9(3)
PD 9(3) provides: “It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon … not used as necessary tools to earn a livelihood; penalty: imprisonment from five to ten years.” Its preamble ties the decree to Proclamation 1081’s objective of suppressing subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, and public disorder. No repealing clause covers preexisting statutes or ordinances on concealed weapons.
Arguments Presented by the People
The Solicitor General and the City Fiscal urged that PD 9(3) is a malum prohibitum offense, punishable regardless of motive, for reasons of public policy. They argued that legislative intent may be gleaned strictly from the text of PD 9(3), and that statutory offenses require no allegation of intent or furtherance of subversive ends.
Constitutional and Procedural Requirements
Under the 1973 Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 19) and Rule 110, Section 5, an Information must designate the statute violated and state the acts constituting the offense. Because the same conduct may fall under PD 9(3), Act 1780 Sec. 26, or Manila ordinances, precise statutory designation and the essential elements must appear in the charging document. The failure to allege motive renders the Information insufficient.
Proper Interpretation of PD 9(3)
PD 9(3) contains two essential elements: (1) carrying outside one’s residence a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon not necessary for livelihood, and (2) that such carrying was in furtherance of, or connected with, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. Absent element (2), a person may still be prosecuted under preexisting statutes or city ordinances governing concealed weapons, but not under PD 9(3).
Construction of Penal Statutes in Favor of the Accused
Penal statutes are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. Ambiguities in PD 9(3) must be resolved by examining the decree’s preamble, its reference to Proclamation 1081’s objectives, and the legislative intent to curb subversive and lawless violence. To interpret PD 9(3) as criminalizing any carriage of a weapon outside the home, regardless of motive, would lead to absurd and oppressive results.
Consequences of an Overbroad Application
A literal enforcement of PD 9(3)—without requiring proof of subversive intent—could transform police into instruments of harassment and extortion, punishing individuals
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-42050-66)
Procedural History
- Twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines, through the City Fiscal of Manila, the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General, consolidated into one Decision.
- Petitions challenge orders quashing or dismissing Informations in three trial courts:
- Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VII (Hon. Amante P. Purisima): 17 Petitions (G.R. L-42050-66)
- Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVIII (Hon. Maximo A. Maceren): 8 Petitions (G.R. L-46229-32; L-46313-16)
- Court of First Instance of Samar (Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo): 1 Petition (G.R. L-46997)
- Each Information charged “illegal possession of deadly weapon” under Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, for carrying various bladed or pointed instruments outside residence.
Facts of the Case
- In Manila Branch VII (L-42050-66):
- Accused (e.g., Porfirio Candelosas y Duran) alleged to carry a carving knife (6½″ blade, 5¼″ handle; total 11¾″) outside residence, not used to earn livelihood.
- Other Informations identical in form; differ only in names, dates, locations, weapon types.
- In Manila Branch XVIII (L-46229-32; L-46313-16):
- Accused (e.g., Reynaldo Laqui y Aquino) alleged to carry an ice pick (8½″ overall) outside residence, not used as necessary tool for livelihood.
- Similar variants for other respondents.
- In Samar (L-46997):
- Accused (Panchito Refuncion) alleged to carry a “socyatan” (deadly by nature) outside residence at Barangay Barruz, Matuguinao, Samar, not a tool to earn livelihood.
Orders of Dismissal Below
- Judge Purisima (Branch VII):
- Quashed Informations for failure to allege that weapon possession was connected to subversion, insurrection, organized lawlessness or public disorder.
- Warned against potential police abuse and extortion under an overbroad reading of P.D. 9.
- Judge Maceren (Branch XVIII):
- Sustained motions to quash; held that paragraph 3 criminalizes only carrying weapons in furtherance of subversion, public disorder, or similar conditions.
- Noted absence of repealing clause for pre-existing laws on weapon possession.
- Judge Polo (Samar):
- Dismissed Information; ruled that a predicate felony in connection with subversive acts or public disorder is