Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    People vs. Purisima (Statutory Construction) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    Vaughn Jedry Garcia
    The Supreme Court consolidated 26 petitions filed by the People of the Philippines represented by city and provincial fiscals against orders from trial courts quashing informations charging individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons under Presidential Decree No. 9. The trial courts ruled the informations were insufficient for failing to allege that possession was connected to subversion, rebellion, or public disorder. However, the Supreme Court held that Presidential Decree No. 9 must be read in context with its preamble and Proclamation 1081, indicating its intent was to penalize acts related to suppressing lawlessness. Therefore, the informations were sufficient without alleging a connection to subversion as the decree intended to prohibit such weapon possession in general. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Purisima (Statutory Construction) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    Vaughn Jedry Garcia
    43 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court consolidated 26 petitions filed by the People of the Philippines represented by city and provincial fiscals against orders from trial courts quashing informations charging individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons under Presidential Decree No. 9. The trial courts ruled the informations were insufficient for failing to allege that possession was connected to subversion, rebellion, or public disorder. However, the Supreme Court held that Presidential Decree No. 9 must be read in context with its preamble and Proclamation 1081, indicating its intent was to penalize acts related to suppressing lawlessness. Therefore, the informations were sufficient without alleging a connection to subversion as the decree intended to prohibit such weapon possession in general. The petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Statcon

    Original Title

    People Vspurisima

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court consolidated 26 petitions filed by the People of the Philippines represented by city and provincial fiscals against orders from trial courts quashing informations charging individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons under Presidential Decree No. 9. The trial courts ruled the informations were insufficient for failing to allege that possession was connected to subversion, rebellion, or public disorder. However, the Supreme Court held that Presidential Decree No. 9 must be read in context with its preamble and Proclamation 1081, indicating its intent was to penalize acts related to suppressing lawlessness. Therefore, the informations were sufficient without alleging a connection to subversion as the decree intended to prohibit such weapon possession in general. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views4 pages

    People vs. Purisima (Statutory Construction) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    Vaughn Jedry Garcia
    The Supreme Court consolidated 26 petitions filed by the People of the Philippines represented by city and provincial fiscals against orders from trial courts quashing informations charging individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons under Presidential Decree No. 9. The trial courts ruled the informations were insufficient for failing to allege that possession was connected to subversion, rebellion, or public disorder. However, the Supreme Court held that Presidential Decree No. 9 must be read in context with its preamble and Proclamation 1081, indicating its intent was to penalize acts related to suppressing lawlessness. Therefore, the informations were sufficient without alleging a connection to subversion as the decree intended to prohibit such weapon possession in general. The petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    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 respondentcourts 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 noninclusion 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.

    The petition is DISMISSED.

    You might also like