People vs.

Purisima
(Statutory Construction)
Facts:
These 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 question of law.
The respondent-courts are: CFI of Manila Branches VII and
XVIII and CFI of Samar
Several informations were filed before the
abovementioned courts charging the accused of Illegal
Possession of Deadly Weapon in violation of Presidential
Decree #9. The counsel of the defense filed motions to
quash the said informations after which the respondentcourts passed their own orders quashing the said
informations on common ground that the informations did
not allege facts constituting ang offense penalized until
PD#9 for failure to state an essential element of the
crime, which is, that the carrying outside of the accuseds

residence of a bladed, pointed, or blunt weapon is in

furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with, or
related to to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion,
organized lawlessness or public disorder.
The respondent courts stand that PD#9 should be read in
the context of Proc.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 noninclusion 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.

Issue:
Are 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:
1. It is the constitutional right of any person who stands
charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
2. Under Sec. 5 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, for a
complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the
designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense. This
is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford
him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.
3. 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 petition is DISMISSED.