PEOPLE v.
PURISIMA (LEAH)
20 November 1978 | GR Nr. L-42050-66 | MUNOZ PALMA, J. | Parts of Statutes RULING:
- All 26 Petitions for review were denied, and affirmed the orders of the
PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES respondent judges dismissing or quashing the information concerned
DEFENDANT APPELLANT: HONORABLE JUDGE AMANTE P. - Observations that were made in the decision regarding the right of the State
PURISIMA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH VII, or Petitioner herein to file either an amended Information under Presidential
and PORFIRIO CANDELOSAS, NESTOR BAES, ELIAS L. GARCIA, Decree Nr. 9, paragraph 3, or a new one under other existing statute or city
SIMEON BUNDALIAN, JR., JOSEPH C. MAISO, EDUARDO A. LIBORDO, ordinance as the facts may warrant.
ROMEO L. SUGAY, FEDERICO T. DIZON, GEORGE M. ALBINO,
MARIANO COTIA, JR., ARMANDO L. DIZON, ROGELIO B. PAREÑO, RATIO:
RODRIGO V. ESTRADA, ALFREDO A. REYES, JOSE A. BACARRA, - Carrying a pointed weapon is not used as a necessary tool or implement for
REYNALDO BOGTONG, and EDGARDO M. MENDOZA||| (People v. livelihood,
Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-46229-32, L-46313-16, L-46997, - The act of carrying the weapon was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in
[November 20, 1978], 176 PHIL 186-212) connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence,
criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
SUMMARY: - Petitioner having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous
26 Petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines by the Office weapon outside of the residence without regard to motive or intent makes
of the City Fiscal of Manila that were consolidated in one decision as they are the case of statutory construction.
said to be involved in one basic question of law. Before the said courts,
information were filed charging the accused with “illegal possession of deadly SEPARATE OPINIONS:
weapon” that was said to be in violation of the Presidential Decree Nr. 9. On a 1. BARREDO, J. – Concurred with the qualification that under existing
motion quash field by the accused, the judges issued in the respective cases that jurisprudence conviction is possible, without the need of amending the
were filed before them. information, for violation for other laws or ordinances on concealment of
deadly weapons.
DOCTRINE: 2. MAKASIAR, J. – Concurred with Justice Barredo in that under the
Presidential Decree Nr. 9 Para 3. “It is unlawful to carry outside of residence information, that accused can be validly convicted of violating Sec. 26 of
any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as 'fan knife,' 'spear,' 'dagger,' 'bolo,' Act No. 1780 or the city or town ordinances on carrying consuled weapons.
'balisong,' 'barong,' 'kris,' or club, except where such articles are being used as 3. CONCEPCION, J. – Concurred with the additional observation that accused
necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being used in could properly be convicted of a violation of Act 1780 of the Philippine
connection therewith; and any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the Commission or of the ordinance.
penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to ten years as a Military
Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.
FACTS:
- 26 Petitions for review were filed by the People of the Philippines by the
Office of the City Fiscal of Manila that were consolidated in one decision as
they are said to be involved in one basic question of law.
- Before the said courts, information were filed charging the accused with
“illegal possession of deadly weapon” that was said to be in violation of the
Presidential Decree Nr. 9. On a motion quash field by the accused, the
judges issued in the respective cases that were filed before them.
- Information did not allege facts that constitute the offense penalized by the
decree due to failure of stating the essential element of the crime.
ISSUES: WoN the information that were filed by the People are sufficient in form
and in substance to justify the offense of “illegal possession of deadly weapon?”
