People v. Purisima, G.R. No.

L-42050-66, November 20, 1978

Facts:
Several informations were filed 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 respondent-courts passed their own orders quashing the said
informations on common ground that the informations did not allege facts constituting an
offense penalized under PD#9 for failure to state an essential element of the crime, which is,
that the carrying outside of the accused’s residence of a bladed, pointed, or blunt weapon is in
furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with, or related to subversion, insurrection, or
rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder. Judge Purisima 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:
Whether the informations filed by the prosecutors in each petition are sufficient in form and
substance to constitute the offense of “illegal possession of deadly weapon” punishable under
P.D. No. 9(3).

Ruling:
No. First, the Court said that the preamble or the explanatory note of a statute contains the
legislative intent and spirit of the decree if there will be problems as to how we should construe
a statute. The Court then stated that the results of implementing P.D. No. 9 (3) should be within
its legislative intent. The Court accorded with Judge Purisima’s ruling, saying that it is only the
act of carrying a blunt or bladed weapon with an intention or motivation connected with or in
relation with desired result of Proclamation 1081 that is within the intent of P.D. No. 9(3), and
nothing else. The Court also found, as did Purisima, that the elements to constitute the violation
of P.D. 9(3) were not mentioned in the informations, the second element being absent, hence
upheld the decision of Purisima. The petition therefore was denied.