G.R. No. 5000 - People vs. Santo Nino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 5000)

Statutory Provision at Issue (Act No. 1780, Section 26)

Section 26 of Act No. 1780, as quoted, makes it unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person specified edged weapons (bowie knife, dirk, dagger, kris) or “other deadly weapon.” The section contains a proviso excluding firearms from the prohibition when the firearm is in the possession of a person who has secured a license therefor or who is otherwise entitled to carry under the Act.

Allegations in the Amended Complaint

The amended complaint charges Victor Santo Nino with violating Section 26 by voluntarily, unlawfully, and criminally having concealed about his person one iron bar approximately 15 inches long with an iron ball on one end and a string on the other to tie to the wrist, described as designed and made for use in fighting and as a deadly weapon. The complaint specifically asserts a violation of Section 26 of Act No. 1780.

Procedural Posture and Ruling Below

A demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained by the trial court, effectively dismissing the charge on grounds of legal insufficiency. The government appealed that dismissal to the appellate tribunal (this court).

Lower Court’s Rationale: Application of Ejusdem Generis

The court below applied the rule of ejusdem generis to construe the phrase “or other deadly weapon” as limited to weapons of the same kind as those specifically enumerated (i.e., edged or bladed weapons—armas blancas). The lower court concluded that the general term must be interpreted to embrace only items of the same nature as the specifically listed items; from that construction, the lower court inferred that certain weapons such as a revolver carried concealed would not fall within the prohibition of Section 26.

Appellate Analysis: Legislative Intent and Proviso Controls Construction

The appellate decision rejects the lower court’s restrictive application of ejusdem generis where such application conflicts with clear legislative intent evident elsewhere in the statute. The court stated that the rule of ejusdem generis is an interpretive aid used only to ascertain legislative intent; it must yield if a different meaning is plainly shown by other statutory text. Here, the proviso to Section 26—the explicit exception for firearms when licensed or otherwise entitled to be carried—demonstrates that the legislature understood “other deadly weapon” to reach beyond the specified list of edged weapons and contemplated that unlicensed firearms would be caught by the prohibition. Thus, rather than limiting “other deadly weapon

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 5000)

Citation and Decision

Reported at 13 Phil. 141.
G.R. No. 5000.
Decision date: March 11, 1909.
Opinion delivered by Willard, J.
Concurrence noted: Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Statutory Provision Involved

The case involves Act No. 1780, entitled: "An Act to regulate the importation, acquisition, possession, use, and transfer of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of same except in compliance with the provisions of this Act."
Section 26 of Act No. 1780, quoted in part in the decision, provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed about his person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, kris, or other deadly weapon: Provided, That this prohibition shall not apply to firearms in the possession of persons who have secured a license therefor or who are entitled to carry same under the provisions of this Act."

Factual Allegations (Amended Complaint)

The amended complaint accuses Victor Santo Nino of violating Act No. 1780.
Alleged date and place of offense: "on or about the 16th day of August, 1908, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands."
The accused is alleged to have "voluntarily, unlawfully, and criminally, had in his possession and concealed about his person a deadly weapon, to wit; One (1) iron bar, about 15 inches in length provided with an iron ball on one end and a string on the other to tie to the wrist."
The weapon is described as "designed and made for use in fighting, and as a deadly weapon."
The complaint expressly charges a violation "With violation of the provisions of section 26 of Act No. 1780 of the Philippine Commission."

Procedural Posture

A demurrer to the amended complaint was filed and sustained in the court below.
The United States, as plaintiff and appellant, appealed the sustaining of the demurrer.
The case reached this Court on appeal by the Government.

Lower Court's Rationale for Sustaining Demurrer

The court below held that the phrase "or other deadly weapon" should be interpreted by the rule of ejusdem generis.
The court below applied the ejusdem gene