Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Valenzuela City, Branch 82


-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 89171

For: Violation of P.D. 9, as
amended by B.P. 6



(With Prior Leave of Court)


represented by the Public Attorneys Office, with leave of court previously
obtained, respectfully submits this Demurrer to the Prosecutions Evidence
to this Honorable Court on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
adduce sufficient evidence of his guilt to overcome the presumption of
innocence and shift the burden of proof:


1) Accused was indicted for violation of Section P.D. 9, as amended

by B.P. 6. The accusatory portion of the information therefor reads as

That on or about October 9, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within

the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) improvised ice pick
marked as BRB-1 10-09-16 w/ signature, which pointed weapon is in
furtherance of or to abet, or in connection with lawless violence[,]
criminality, chaos, or public disorder, and is not for the purpose of using
as necessary tool or implement to earn a livelihood or in pursuit of a
lawful activity.


2) During his arraignment on 17 January 2016, the accused entered

a plea of not guilty. Pre-trial was terminated on 4 December 2016 for
failure of the complaining witness, P03 Robert L. Santillan to appear
despite due notice. Trial on the merits was then held.
3) During the initial trial on 16 August 2017, the prosecution and the
defense stipulated on the existence of the Affidavit of Investigation 1
which was executed by SP04 Ronald Sanchez with a counter-stipulation
that he has no personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances
leading to the arrest of the accused.

4) On 10 October 2017, the prosecution and the defense likewise

stipulated on the existence of the affidavit of P03 Santillan. He was placed
undercross-examination on 21 November 2017. Thereafter, the
prosecution orally offered its documentary exhibits on 5 December 2017.
The said exhibits were admitted by the Honorable Court on the same date
despite the objection of the defense. The defense then orally moved for
leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence which was granted by the
Honorable Court. Pursuant to Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
the defense has ten (10) days within which to file a demurrer to evidence.
Thus, this demurrer to evidence was seasonably filed.

5) Based on the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-aresto2 of P03

Santillan on 9 October 2016, at about 1:00 in the afternoon, he was
allegedly tasked by PSINSP Rodrigo Albayalde to conduct a validation and
follow-up operation regarding a robbery hold-up incident which occurred
within his area of responsibility. He, however, did not append to his
affidavit any proof of dispatch. Moreover, he failed to give details
regarding the alleged robbery hold-up incident such as, among others, the
date, time and place of its commission and the possible suspect or
suspects therefor.

6) At any rate, while P03 Santillan was along Mc Arthur Highway,

Malanday, Valenzuela City at around 2:00 in the afternoon, he allegedly
saw the accused, who seemed to be holding a metal while looking at
vehicles which were passing by. When P03 Santillan went closer to the
accused he realized that he latter was holding an improvised ice pick. P03
Santillan then allegedly introduced himself as police officer to the accused.
He allegedly held the hand which the accused used in holding the
improvised ice pick. The accused allegedly tried to grapple with P03
Santillan but the latter was eventually able to subdue and handcuff him.
Thereafter, P03 Santillan allegedly confiscated the improvised ice pick from
the accused.


7) The pivotal issue for resolution in the instant demurrer to

evidence is whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
the guilty of the accused for violation of P.D. No. 9, as amended by B.P. 6.

Exhibit C
Exhibit A

8) P.D. No. 9 penalizes, among others, the carrying outside of

residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as fan knife,
spear, dagger, bolo, balisong, barong, kris, or club, except
where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to
earn a livelihood and while being sued in connection therewith. Any person
found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
five (5) to ten (10) years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may
direct. This penalty was reduced through the enactment on 21 November
1978 of B.P. 6, entitled An Act Reducing the Penalty for Illegal Possession
of Bladed, Pointed or Blunt Weapons, and For Other Purposes, Amending
for the Purpose Presidential Decree Number Nine, or to wit:

3. It is unlawful to carry outside of ones residence any bladed, pointed

or blunt weapon such as knife, spear, pana, dagger, bolo, barong,
kris, or chako, except where such articles are being used as necessary
tools or implements to earn a livelihood or in pursuit of a lawful activity. Any
person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not
less than one month nor more than one year or a fine of not less than Two
Hundred Pesos nor more than Two Thousand Pesos, or both such
imprisonment and fine as the Court may direct.

9) The crime described and penalized in B.P. 6 is substantially

similar with that provided in the third paragraph of P.D. No. 9. The
elements of the crime treated in P.D. No. 9 are:

1. the carrying outside ones residence of any bladed, blunt, or

pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement
for a livelihood; and

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.3

10) In People v. Purisima, et al.,4 the Supreme Court edified that it is

the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if
concealed, outside of the scope of the statute or the city ordinance
mentioned above. In other words, a simple act of carrying any of the
weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in
itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the
motivation behind it. Without that motivation, the act falls within the
purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so

People v. Purisima, et al., R. No. L-42050-66, 20 November 1978
11) In the same case, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to
ascertain the intent and spirit of P.D. No. 9 it is imperative to examine its
preamble or whereas clauses which enumerate the facts or events which
justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated
therein. In the paragraph immediately following the last whereas clause,
the P.D. No. 9 states that:


the Armed Forces of the Philippines, in order to attain the desired result of
the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do
hereby order and decree that:

xxx xxx xxx

12) According to the Supreme Court, it is clear from the above that
the acts penalized in P.D. 9 are those related to the desired result of
Proclamation 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7. General Orders Nos.
6 and 7 refer to firearms and therefore have no relevance to P.D. 9 (3)
which refers to blunt or bladed weapons. 5 The Supreme Court further
quoted the whereas clauses of Proclamation No. 1081 to highlight the
underlying reasons for its issuance:

WHEREAS, these lawless elements having taken up arms against our duly
constituted government and against our people, and having committed and
are still committing acts of armed insurrection and rebellion consisting of
armed raids, forays, sorties, ambushes, wanton acts of murders, spoilage,
plunder, looting, arsons, destruction of public and private buildings, and
attacks against innocent and defenseless civilian lives and property, all of
which activities have seriously endangered and continue to endanger public
order and safety and the security of the nation, ...

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, it is evident that there is throughout the land a state of

anarchy and lawlessness, chaos and disorder, turmoil and destruction of a
magnitude equivalent to an actual war between the forces of our duly
constituted government and the New People's Army and their satellite
organizations because of the unmitigated forays, raids, ambuscades,
assaults, violence, murders, assassinations, acts of terror, deceits, coercions,
threats, intimidations, treachery, machinations, arsons, plunders and
depredations committed and being committed by the aforesaid lawless
elements who have pledged to the whole nation that they will not stop their
dastardly effort and scheme until and unless they have fully attained their
primary and ultimate purpose of forcibly seizing political and state power in
this country by overthrowing our present duly constituted government, ...

13) According to the Supreme Court, it follows that it is only that act
of carrying a blunt or bladed weapon with a motivation connected with or
related to the afore-quoted desired result of Proclamation No. 1081 that is
within the intent of P.D. 9 (3), and nothing else. 6 In this case, it cannot be
said that the improvised ice pick, which was allegedly recovered from the
accused, was employed as a necessary means or in pursuance of or in
connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence,
criminality, chaos and public disorder which are mentioned in Proclamation
No. 1081. P03 Santillan himself asserted that the accused was merely
allegedly holding an improvised ice pick while he was looking at passing
motor vehicles.

14) The same result would be reached even if the wisdom of the
Supreme Courts decision in People v. Purisima is questioned and even if it
is argued that the words lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public
disorder comprehend all crimes or offenses other than which were
adverted in Proclamation No. 1081 because in order to support a finding of
guilt for violation of P.D. No. 9, as amended by B.P. No. 6, it is imperative
to establish the causal connection between the possession of a bladed or
blunt weapon and the crime or offense committed along with it. Mere
possession of a bladed or blunt will not suffice. It has to be carried as a
necessary means or in pursuance of or in connection with a crime.
Certainly, it is not absolutely necessary to carry a bladed or blunt weapon
to commit a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. Suffice it to say
that it is possible for one to possess drugs and have them discreetly stored
in ones bag or garment without the necessity of resorting to the use of a
bladed or blunt weapon.

15) Aside from the foregoing, the narration of P03 Santillan is

incredible because in the first place the bladed or blunt weapon, which he
allegedly recovered from the accused, does not appear to be an ice pick.
Rather, it looks more like a metal stick used for grilling meat such as
barbecue. A photograph of the confiscated improvised ice pick is attached
to the records of the case for the Honorable Courts reference.

16) Verily, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it

discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his
behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. 7


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto

this Honorable Court to order as follows:

1) to direct the prosecution to file a comment/opposition to the instant

demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible of ten (10) calendar
days from receipt hereof and to submit this demurrer to evidence
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of filing of the said
comment/opposition or from the lapse of the ten-(10) day period to
file the same;

2) hold in abeyance the presentation of defense evidence until the

instant demurrer to evidence is resolved;
Macayan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 175842, 18 March 2015
3) dismiss this case for insufficiency of evidence.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 07 December 2017.


3RD Floor, Post Office Bldg.
Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,
Malinta, Valenzuela City



Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP No. 1048964 dated 10 January 2017 / CALMANA
Admitted to the Bar on April 29, 2015
MCLE Compliance V 0011951 dated Nov. 11, 2015

Mrs. Helen M. Evangelista
Clerk of Court III
Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela City Branch 82

Greetings! Kindly submit the foregoing demurrer to evidence for the

kind consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on 15 December
2017 at 8:30 in the morning.


Copy furnished:
SACP Randy C. Caingal
Office of the City Prosecutor
Valenzuela City