1-B,

College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

CASE DIGEST: GR. NO. L – 42050-66, 20 November 1978

CASE TITLE: People v. Purisima

FACTS:
• There are twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines
represented,respectively, by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this
one Decision as they involve one basic questionof law.
• The respondent-courts are: CFI of Manila Branches VII and XVIII and CFI of Samar
• Informations were filed before the abovementioned courts charging the accused of
“Illegal Possession of Deadly Weapon” in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9.
• The counsel of the defense filed motions to quash the said informations after which the
respondent-courts passed their own orders quashing the said informations on common
ground that the informations did not allege facts constituting ang offense penalized
until Presidential Decree No. 9 for failure to state the elements of the crime: (1) the
carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used
as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood, (2) that the act of carrying the weapon
was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion,
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder
• The respondent courts stand that Presidential Decree No. 9 should be read in the
context of Proclamation No. 1081 which seeks to maintain law and order in the country
as well as the prevention and suppression of all forms of lawless violence.
• The non-inclusion of the aforementioned element may not be distinguished from other
legislation related to the illegal possession of deadly weapons.
• Judge Purisima, in particular, reasoned that the information must allege that the
purpose of possession of the weapon was intended for the purposes of abetting the
conditions of criminality, organized lawlessness, public disorder.
• The petitioners said that the purpose of subversion is not necessary in this regard
because the prohibited act is basically a malum prohibitum or is an action or conduct
that is prohibited by virtue of a statute
• The City Fiscal also added in cases of statutory offenses, the intent is immaterial and
that the commission of the act is voluntary is enough.



 1-B, College of Law, San Beda Manila, A.Y. 2017-2018

ISSUE/S:
• Whether or not the informations filed by the people sufficient in form and substance to
constitute the offense of “Illegal possession of deadly weapon” penalized under
Presidential Decree No. 9?
HELD/RULING:
• No. The supreme court says that the preamble of PD#9 states that the intention of such
decree is to penalize the acts which are related to Proc.1081 which aim to suppress
lawlessness, rebellion, subversive acts, and the like. While the preamble is not a part of
the statute, it implies the intent and spirit of the decree. The preamble and whereas
clauses also enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree
and the stiff sanctions provided.
• The 26 petitions are DENIED. The Orders of respondent Judges dismissing or quashing
the Information concerned, subject however to the observations made in the preceding
pages 23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the right of the State or Petitioner herein to file
either an amended Information under Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, or a new
one under other existing statute or city ordinance as the facts may warrant is
AFFIRMED.