Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • StatCon 32. People vs. Hon. A Purisima Et Al GR No. 420050 66

    Uploaded by

    diane zaragoza
    23 views1 page
    The document summarizes a court case from 1978 regarding the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 9, which banned the carrying of weapons outside one's residence. The case involved individuals charged with carrying a knife outside their home. The issue before the court was whether the decree could reasonably be interpreted to criminalize carrying a weapon for any purpose other than as a tool for one's livelihood. The court ruled that the decree was ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretations. As a penal statute, it must be construed liberally in favor of the accused rather than broadly against them.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    StatCon 32. People vs. Hon. a Purisima Et Al GR No. 420050 66

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes a court case from 1978 regarding the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 9, which banned the carrying of weapons outside one's residence. The case involved individuals charged with carrying a knife outside their home. The issue before the court was whether the decree could reasonably be interpreted to criminalize carrying a weapon for any purpose other than as a tool for one's livelihood. The court ruled that the decree was ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretations. As a penal statute, it must be construed liberally in favor of the accused rather than broadly against them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    23 views1 page

    StatCon 32. People vs. Hon. A Purisima Et Al GR No. 420050 66

    Uploaded by

    diane zaragoza
    The document summarizes a court case from 1978 regarding the interpretation of Presidential Decree No. 9, which banned the carrying of weapons outside one's residence. The case involved individuals charged with carrying a knife outside their home. The issue before the court was whether the decree could reasonably be interpreted to criminalize carrying a weapon for any purpose other than as a tool for one's livelihood. The court ruled that the decree was ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretations. As a penal statute, it must be construed liberally in favor of the accused rather than broadly against them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-42050-66 November 20, 1978

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,


    vs.
    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, respondents.

    FACTS: That on or about the 14 th day of December, 1974, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
    did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody
    and control one (1) carving knife with a blade of 6-½ inches and a wooden handle of 5-1/4 inches, or an overall
    length of 11-¾ inches, which the said accused carried outside of his residence, the said weapon not being used
    as a tool or implement necessary to earn his livelihood nor being used in connection therewith.

    ISSUE: Whether or not for a violation of P.D. 9(3). Could the presidential decree have been conceived to
    produce such absurd, unreasonable, and insensible results?

    RULING:

    The position taken by petitioner that Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, covers one and all
    situations where a person carries outside his residence any of the weapons mentioned or described in the
    decree irrespective of motivation, intent, or purpose, converts these cases into one of "statutory construction."
    That there is ambiguity in the presidential decree is manifest from the conflicting views which arise from its
    implementation. When ambiguity exists, it becomes a judicial task to construe and interpret the true meaning
    and scope of the measure, guided by the basic principle that penal statutes are to be construed and applied
    liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state.

    You might also like