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 respondent-courts 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 non-inclusion 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.