Badge: Preamble; title; illegal possession of deadly weapon; PD 9

Caption: People of the Philippines v. Honorable Judge Amante P. Purisima, Court of

First Instance of Manila, Branch VII, and Porfirio Candelosas, Nestor Baes, Elias L. Garcia,
Simeon Bundalian, Jr., Joseph C. Maiso, Eduardo A. Libordo, Romeo L. Sugay, Federico
T. Dizon, George M. Albino, Mariano Cotia, Jr., Armando L. Dizon, Rogelio B. Pareno,
Rodrigo V. Estrada, Alfredo A. Reyes, Jose A. Bacarra, Reynaldo Bogtong, and Edgardo
M., Mendoza, Muniz [J].

Syllabus: Statutes are to be construed u the light of purposes to be achieved and the
evil sought to be remedied.

Facts:
The case at bar has already been decided along with 9 other cases with the same
question of law. Information were filed in the courts of the respondent Judges charging
the respective accused with “illegal possession of deadly weapon” in violation of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 9. Upon a motion to quash filed by the accused, all the
respondent Judges issued an Order quashing or dismissing the information on a common
ground, viz, that the information did not allege facts which constitute the offense
penalized by PD No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime.

Issue: W/N the information filed is sufficient in form and substance to constitute the
offense of “illegal possession of deadly weapon” penalized under PD No. 9

Ruling: No. The information filed is insufficient in both form and substance; hence, the
Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review.
The main argument of the petitioner is that a perusal of paragraph 3 of P.D. 9
'shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive activities; that the act
proscribed is essentially a malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy.’ It is
argued that the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or
preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to
have been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
It was held that the respondent Judges correctly ruled that this can be the only
reasonably, logical, and valid construction given to PD No. 3. Upon proper construction
of the presidential decree and perusing its preamble, the Court ruled that it is to be
presumed that PD No. 9(3) was promulgated by the President of the Republic there was
no intent to work a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse of authority or act
of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to impose hardship on another, and so
on.

Fallo: Wherefore, the Supreme Court denied the 26 Petitions for Review and affirm the
Orders of respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the Information concerned, subject
however to its observations made in its 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.