Republic of the

Philippines
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
SUPREME COURT
vs.
Manila
JUDGE MAXIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XVIII, and
JUANITO DE LA CRUZ Y NUNEZ, SABINO BUENO
EN BANC
Y CACAL, TIRSO ISAGAN Y FRANCISCO and BEN
CASTILLO Y UBALDO, respondents.

G.R. No. L-42050-66 November 20, 1978

G.R. No. L-46997 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

HONORABLE JUDGE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, vs.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA,
THE HONORABLE WENCESLAO M. POLO, Judge
BRANCH VII, and PORFIRIO CANDELOSAS,
of the Court of First Instance of Samar, and
NESTOR BAES, ELIAS L. GARCIA, SIMEON
PANCHITO REFUNCION, respondents.
BUNDALIAN, JR., JOSEPH C. MAISO, EDUARDO
A. LIBORDO, ROMEO L. SUGAY, FEDERICO T.
DIZON, GEORGE M. ALBINO, MARIANO COTIA,
Jose L. Gamboa, Fermin Martin, Jr. & Jose D.
JR., ARMANDO L. DIZON, ROGELIO B. PARENO,
Cajucom, Office of the City of Fiscal of Manila
RODRIGO V. ESTRADA, ALFREDO A. REYES, JOSE
and the Office of Provincial Fiscal of Samar for
A. BACARRA, REYNALDO BOGTONG, and
petitioners.
EDGARDO M. MENDOZA, respondents.

Norberto Parto for respondents Candelosas,

G.R. No. L-46229-32 November 20, 1978
Baes and Garcia.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

Amado C. de la Marced for respondents Simeon
vs. Bundalian Jr., et al.

JUDGE MAXIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST

INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XVIII, and
Manuel F. de Jesus for all the respondents in L-
REYNALDO LAQUI Y AQUINO, ELPIDIO ARPON,
46229-32 and L-46313-16.
VICTOR EUGENIO Y ROQUE and ALFREDO
VERSOZA, respondents.

Norberto L. Apostol for respondent Panchito

Refuncion.
G.R. No. L-46313-16 November 20, 1978

1
 Thus, are the Informations filed by the People
sufficient in form and substance to constitute
Hon. Amante P. Purisima for and in his own
the offense of "illegal possession of deadly
behalf.
weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree
(PD for short) No. 9? This is the central issue
which we shall resolve and dispose of, all other
corollary matters not being indispensable for
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.: the moment.

These twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed A — The Information filed by the People
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 1. In L-42050-66, one typical Information
consolidated in this one Decision as they involve filed with the Court presided by Judge Purisima
one basic question of law. follows:

These Petitions or appeals involve three Courts THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
of First Instance, namely: the Court of First versus PORFIRIO CANDELOSAS Y DURAN,
Instance of Manila, Branch VII, presided by Hon. accused.
Amante P. Purisima (17 Petitions), the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch XVIII, presided
by Hon. Maximo A. Maceren (8 Petitions) and, Crim. Case No. 19639
the Court of First Instance of Samar, with Hon.
Wenceslao M. Polo, presiding, (1 Petition).
VIOLATION OF PAR. 3, PRES. DECREE No. 9 OF
PROCLAMATION 1081
Before those courts, Informations were filed
charging the respective accused with "illegal
possession of deadly weapon" in violation of INFORMATION
Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash
filed by the accused, the three Judges
mentioned above issued in the respective cases The undersigned accuses PORFIRIO
filed before them — the details of which will be CANDELOSAS Y DURAN of a violation of
recounted below — an Order quashing or paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 9 of
dismissing the Informations, on a common Proclamation 1081, committed as follows:
ground, viz, that the Information did not allege
facts which constitute the offense penalized by
Presidential Decree No. 9 because it failed to That on or about the 14 th day of December,
state one essential element of the crime. 1974, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,

2
feloniously and knowingly have in his INFORMATION
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 The undersigned accuses REYNALDO LAQUI Y
overall length of 11-¾ inches, which the said AQUINO of a VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 3,
accused carried outside of his residence, the PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 9 in relation to
said weapon not being used as a tool or Letter of Instruction No. 266 of the Chief
implement necessary to earn his livelihood nor Executive dated April 1, 1975, committed as
being used in connection therewith. follows:

Contrary to law. (p. 32, rollo of L-42050-66) That on or about the 28 th day of January, 1977,
in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
The other Informations are similarly worded and knowingly carry outside of his residence a
except for the name of the accused, the date bladed and pointed weapon, to wit: an ice pick
and place of the commission of the crime, and with an overall length of about 8½ inches, the
the kind of weapon involved. same not being used as a necessary tool or
implement to earn his livelihood nor being used
in connection therewith.
2. In L-46229-32 and L-46313-16, the
Information filed with the Court presided by
Judge Maceren follows: Contrary to law. (p. 14, rollo of L-46229-32)

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, The other Informations are likewise similarly
versus REYNALDO LAQUI Y AQUINO, accused. worded except for the name of the accused, the
date and place of the commission of the crime,
and the kind of weapon involved.
CRIM. CASE NO. 29677

3. In L-46997, the Information before the

VIOL. OF PAR. 3, Court of First Instance of Samar is quoted
hereunder:

PD 9 IN REL. TO LOI
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant,
versus PANCHITO REFUNCION, accused.
No. 266 of the Chief

CRIM. CASE NO. 933

Executive dated April 1, 1975

3
For: In dismissing or quashing the Informations the
trial courts concurred with the submittal of the
defense that one essential element of the
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF offense charged is missing from the
Information, viz: that the carrying outside of the
accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or
DEADLY WEAPON blunt weapon is in furtherance or on the
occasion of, connected with or related to
subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized
(VIOLATION OF PD NO. 9) lawlessness or public disorder.

INFORMATION 1. Judge Purisima reasoned out, inter alia,

in this manner:

The undersigned First Assistant Provincial Fiscal

of Samar, accuses PANCHITO REFUNCION of the ... the Court is of the opinion that in order that
crime of ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DEADLY possession of bladed weapon or the like outside
WEAPON or VIOLATION OF PD NO. 9 issued by residence may be prosecuted and tried under
the President of the Philippines on Oct. 2, 1972, P.D. No. 9, the information must specifically
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated Sept. allege that the possession of bladed weapon
21 and 23, 1972, committed as follows: charged was for the purpose of abetting, or in
furtherance of the conditions of rampant
criminality, organized lawlessness, public
disorder, etc. as are contemplated and recited
That on or about the 6th day of October, 1976,
in Proclamation No. 1081, as justification
in the evening at Barangay Barruz, Municipality
therefor. Devoid of this specific allegation, not
of Matuginao, Province of Samar Philippines,
necessarily in the same words, the information
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorabe
is not complete, as it does not allege sufficient
Court, the abovenamed accused, knowingly,
facts to constitute the offense contemplated in
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously carried with
P.D. No. 9. The information in these cases under
him outside of his residence a deadly weapon
consideration suffer from this defect.
called socyatan, an instrument which from its
very nature is no such as could be used as a
necessary tool or instrument to earn a
livelihood, which act committed by the accused xxx xxx xxx
is a Violation of Presidential Decree No. 9.

And while there is no proof of it before the

CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 8, rollo of L-46997) Court, it is not difficult to believe the
murmurings of detained persons brought to
Court upon a charge of possession of bladed
weapons under P.D. No. 9, that more than ever
B. — The Orders of dismissal —
before, policemen - of course not all can be so
heartless — now have in their hands P.D. No. 9

4
as a most convenient tool for extortion, what of insurrection or rebellion. It is therefore
with the terrifying risk of being sentenced to reasonable to conclude from the foregoing
imprisonment of five to ten years for a rusted premises that the carrying of bladed, pointed or
kitchen knife or a pair of scissors, which only blunt weapons outside of one's residence which
God knows where it came from. Whereas is made unlawful and punishable by said par. 3
before martial law an extortion-minded peace of P.D. No. 9 is one that abets subversion,
officer had to have a stock of the cheapest insurrection or rebellion, lawless violence,
paltik, and even that could only convey the criminality, chaos and public disorder or is
coercive message of one year in jail, now intended to bring about these conditions. This
anything that has the semblance of a sharp conclusion is further strengthened by the fact
edge or pointed object, available even in trash that all previously existing laws that also made
cans, may already serve the same purpose, and the carrying of similar weapons punishable have
yet five to ten times more incriminating than not been repealed, whether expressly or
the infamous paltik. impliedly. It is noteworthy that Presidential
Decree No. 9 does not contain any repealing
clause or provisions.
For sure, P.D. No. 9 was conceived with the best
of intentions and wisely applied, its necessity
can never be assailed. But it seems it is back- xxx xxx xxx
firing, because it is too hot in the hands of
policemen who are inclined to backsliding.
The mere carrying outside of one's residence of
these deadly weapons if not concealed in one's
The checkvalves against abuse of P.D. No. 9 are person and if not carried in any of the aforesaid
to be found in the heart of the Fiscal and the specified places, would appear to be not
conscience of the Court, and hence this unlawful and punishable by law.
resolution, let alone technical legal basis, is
prompted by the desire of this Court to apply
said checkvalves. (pp. 55-57, rollo of L-42050- With the promulgation of Presidential Decree
66) No. 9, however, the prosecution, through
Assistant Fiscal Hilario H. Laqui, contends in his
opposition to the motion to quash, that this act
2. Judge Maceren in turn gave his grounds is now made unlawful and punishable,
for dismissing the charges as follows: particularly by paragraph 3 thereof, regardless
of the intention of the person carrying such
weapon because the law makes it "mala
xxx xxx xxx prohibita". If the contention of the prosecution
is correct, then if a person happens to be caught
while on his way home by law enforcement
As earlier noted the "desired result" sought to officers carrying a kitchen knife that said person
be attained by Proclamation No. 1081 is the had just bought from a store in order that the
maintenance of law and order throughout the same may be used by one's cook for preparing
Philippines and the prevention and suppression the meals in one's home, such person will be
of all forms of lawless violence as well as any act liable for punishment with such a severe

5
penalty as imprisonment from five to ten years declaring a state of martial law throughout the
under the decree. Such person cannot claim country was issued because of wanton
that said knife is going to be used by him to destruction to lives and properties widespread
earn a livelihood because he intended it merely lawlessness and anarchy. And in order to
for use by his cook in preparing his meals. restore the tranquility and stability of the
country and to secure the people from violence
anti loss of lives in the quickest possible manner
This possibility cannot be discounted if and time, carrying firearms, explosives and
Presidential Decree No. 9 were to be deadly weapons without a permit unless the
interpreted and applied in the manner that that same would fall under the exception is
the prosecution wants it to be done. The good prohibited. This conclusion becomes more
intentions of the President in promulgating this compelling when we consider the penalty
decree may thus be perverted by some imposable, which is from five years to ten years.
unscrupulous law enforcement officers. It may A strict enforcement of the provision of the said
be used as a tool of oppression and tyranny or law would mean the imposition of the
of extortion. Draconian penalty upon the accused.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

It is therefore the considered and humble view It is public knowledge that in rural areas, even
of this Court that the act which the President before and during martial law, as a matter of
intended to make unlawful and punishable by status symbol, carrying deadly weapons is very
Presidential Decree No. 9, particularly by common, not necessarily for committing a
paragraph 3 thereof, is one that abets or is crime nor as their farm implement but for self-
intended to abet subversion, rebellion, preservation or self-defense if necessity would
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos arise specially in going to and from their farm.
and public disorder. (pp. 28-30, rollo of L- (pp. 18-19, rollo of L-46997)
46229-32)

In most if not all of the cases, the orders of

3. Judge Polo of the Court of First Instance dismissal were given before arraignment of the
of Samar expounded his order dismissing the accused. In the criminal case before the Court
Information filed before him, thus: of (First Instance of Samar the accused was
arraigned but at the same time moved to quash
the Information. In all the cases where the
... We believe that to constitute an offense accused were under arrest, the three Judges
under the aforcited Presidential decree, the ordered their immediate release unless held on
same should be or there should be an allegation other charges.
that a felony was committed in connection or in
furtherance of subversion, rebellion,
insurrection, lawless violence and public C. — The law under which the Informations in
disorder. Precisely Proclamation No. 1081 question were filed by the People.

6
 result of the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081
and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby
As seen from the Informations quoted above,
order and decree that:
the accused are charged with illegal possession
of deadly weapon in violation of Presidential
Decree No. 9, Paragraph 3.
1. Any violation of the aforesaid General
Orders Nos. 6 and 7 is unlawful and the violator
shall, upon conviction suffer:
We quote in full Presidential Decree No. 9, to
wit:

(a) The mandatory penalty of death by a

firing squad or electrocution as a Military,
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 9
Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct, it the
firearm involved in the violation is unlicensed
and is attended by assault upon, or resistance
DECLARING VIOLATIONS OF GENERAL ORDERS to persons in authority or their agents in the
NO. 6 and NO. 7 DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1972, performance of their official functions resulting
AND SEPTEMBER 23, 1972, RESPECTIVELY, TO in death to said persons in authority or their
BE UNLAWFUL AND PROVIDING PENALTIES agent; or if such unlicensed firearm is used in
THEREFORE. the commission of crimes against persons,
property or chastity causing the death of the
victim used in violation of any other General
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 Orders and/or Letters of Instructions
dated September 21, 1972, the Philippines has promulgated under said Proclamation No. 1081:
been placed under a state of martial law;

(b) The penalty of imprisonment ranging

WHEREAS, by virtue of said Proclamation No. from twenty years to life imprisonment as a
1081, General Order No. 6 dated September 22, Military Court/Tribunal/commission may direct,
1972 and General Order No. 7 dated September when the violation is not attended by any of the
23, 1972, have been promulgated by me; circumstances enumerated under the preceding
paragraph;

WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, insurrection,

lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public (c) The penalty provided for in the
disorder mentioned in the aforesaid preceding paragraphs shall be imposed upon
Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and the owner, president, manager, members of the
abetted by the use of firearms, explosives and board of directors or other responsible officers
other deadly weapons; of any public or private firms, companies,
corporations or entities who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, such firm, company, corporation or entity
Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of concerned to be used in violation of said
the Philippines, in older to attain the desired General Orders Nos. 6 and 7.

7
2. It is unlawful to posses deadly weapons, Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of
including hand grenades, rifle grenades and October in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
other explosives, including, but not limited to, hundred and seventy-two.
"pill box bombs," "molotov cocktail bombs,"
"fire bombs," or other incendiary device
consisting of any chemical, chemical compound, (SGD) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
or detonating agents containing combustible
units or other ingredients in such proportion,
quantity, packing, or bottling that ignites by fire, President
by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by
detonation of all or part of the compound or
mixture which may cause such a sudden Republic of the Philippines
generation of highly heated gases that the
resultant gaseous pressures are capable of
producing destructive effects on continguous
D. — The arguments of the People —
objects or of causing injury or death of a
person; and any person convicted thereof shall
be punished by imprisonment ranging from ten
In the Comment filed in these cases by the
to fifteen years as a Military
Solicitor General who as stated earlier joins the
Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.
City Fiscal of Manila and the Provincial Fiscal of
Samar in seeking the setting aside of the
questioned orders of dismissal, the main
3. It is unlawful to carry outside of
argument advanced on the issue now under
residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon
consideration is that a perusal of paragraph 3 of
such as "fan knife," "spear," "dagger," "bolo,"
P.D. 9 'shows that the prohibited acts need not
"balisong," "barong," "kris," or club, except
be related to subversive activities; that the act
where such articles are being used as necessary
proscribed is essentially a malum prohibitum
tools or implements to earn a livelihood and
penalized for reasons of public policy.1
while being used in connection therewith; and
any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to
The City Fiscal of Manila in his brief adds further
ten years as a Military
that in statutory offenses the intention of the
Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.
accused who commits the act is immaterial;
that it is enough if the prohibited act is
voluntarily perpetuated; that P.D. 9 provides
4. When the violation penalized in the
and condemns not only the carrying of said
preceding paragraphs 2 and 3 is committed
weapon in connection with the commission of
during the commission of or for the purpose of
the crime of subversion or the like, but also that
committing, any other crime, the penalty shall
of criminality in general, that is, to eradicate
be imposed upon the offender in its maximum
lawless violence which characterized pre-
extent, in addition to the penalty provided for
martial law days. It is also argued that the real
the particular offenses committed or intended
nature of the criminal charge is determined not
to be committed.

8
from the caption or preamble of the ... Any person violating the provisions of this
information nor from the specification of the section shall, upon conviction in a court of
provision of law alleged to have been violated competent jurisdiction, be punished by a fine
but by the actual recital of facts in the not exceeding five hundred pesos, or by
complaint or information.2 imprisonment for a period not exceeding six
months, or both such fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court.
E. — Our Ruling on the matter —

Ordinance No. 3820 of the City of Manila as

1. It is a constitutional right of any person amended by Ordinance No. 3928 which took
who stands charged in a criminal prosecution to effect on December 4, 1957, in turn penalizes
be informed of the nature and cause of the with a fine of not more than P200.00 or
accusation against him.3 imprisonment for not more than one months,
or both, at the discretion of the court, anyone
who shall carry concealed in his person in any
Pursuant to the above, Section 5, Rule 110 of manner that would disguise its deadly character
the Rules of Court, expressly requires that for a any kind of firearm, bowie knife, or other
complaint or information to be sufficient it deadly weapon ... in any public place.
must, inter alia state the designation of the Consequently, it is necessary that the particular
offense by the statute, and the acts or law violated be specified as there exists a
omissions complained of as constituting the substantial difference between the statute and
offense. This is essential to avoid surprise on city ordinance on the one hand and P.D. 9 (3) on
the accused and to afford him the opportunity the other regarding the circumstances of the
to prepare his defense accordingly. 4 commission of the crime and the penalty
imposed for the offense.

To comply with these fundamental

requirements of the Constitution and the Rules We do not agree with petitioner that the above-
on Criminal Procedure, it is imperative for the mentioned statute and the city ordinance are
specific statute violated to be designated or deemed repealed by P.D. 9 (3). 5 P. D. 9(3) does
mentioned 4 in the charge. In fact, another not contain any repealing clause or provision,
compelling reason exists why a specification of and repeal by implication is not favored. 6 This
the statute violated is essential in these cases. principle holds true with greater force with
As stated in the order of respondent Judge regards to penal statutes which as a rule are to
Maceren the carrying of so-called "deadly be construed strictly against the state and
weapons" is the subject of another penal liberally in favor of the accused. 7 In fact, Article
statute and a Manila city ordinance. Thus, 7 of the New Civil Code provides that laws are
Section 26 of Act No. 1780 provides: repealed only by subsequent ones and their
violation or non- observance shall not be
excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the
Section 26. It should be unlawful for any person contrary.
to carry concealed about his person any bowie
knife, dirk dagger, kris, or other deadly weapon:

9
Thus we are faced with the situation where a motivation behind it. Without that motivation,
particular act may be made to fall, at the the act falls within the purview of the city
discretion of a police officer or a prosecuting ordinance or some statute when the
fiscal, under the statute, or the city ordinance, circumstances so warrant.
or the presidential decree. That being the case,
the right becomes more compelling for an
accused to be confronted with the facts Respondent Judges correctly ruled that this can
constituting the essential elements of the be the only reasonably, logical, and valid
offense charged against him, if he is not to construction given to P.D. 9(3).
become an easy pawn of oppression and
harassment, or of negligent or misguided
official action — a fear understandably shared 3. The position taken by petitioner that
by respondent Judges who by the nature of P.D. 9(3) covers one and all situations where a
their judicial functions are daily exposed to such person carries outside his residence any of the
dangers. weapons mentioned or described in the decree
irrespective of motivation, intent, or purpose,
converts these cases into one of "statutory
2. In all the Informations filed by construction." That there is ambiguity in the
petitioner the accused are charged in the presidential decree is manifest from the
caption as well as in the body of the conflicting views which arise from its
Information with a violation of paragraph 3, P.D. implementation. When ambiguity exists, it
9. What then are the elements of the offense becomes a judicial task to construe and
treated in the presidential decree in question? interpret the true meaning and scope of the
measure, guided by the basic principle that
penal statutes are to be construed and applied
We hold that the offense carries two elements: liberally in favor of the accused and strictly
first, the carrying outside one's residence of any against the state.
bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used
as a necessary tool or implement for a
livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying 4. In the construction or interpretation of
the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to a legislative measure — a presidential decree in
abet, or in connection with subversion, these cases — the primary rule is to search for
rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, and determine the intent and spirit of the law.
criminality, chaos, or public disorder. Legislative intent is the controlling factor, for in
the words of this Court in Hidalgo v. Hidalgo,
per Mr. Justice Claudio Teehankee, whatever is
It is the second element which removes the act within the spirit of a statute is within the
of carrying a deadly weapon, if concealed, statute, and this has to be so if strict adherence
outside of the scope of the statute or the city to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice
ordinance mentioned above. In other words, a and contradictions. 8
simple act of carrying any of the weapons
described in the presidential decree is not a
criminal offense in itself. What makes the act There are certain aids available to Us to
criminal or punishable under the decree is the ascertain the intent or reason for P.D. 9(3).

10
 A "preamble" is the key of the statute, to open
the minds of the makers as to the mischiefs
First, the presence of events which led to or
which are to be remedied, and objects which
precipitated the enactment of P.D. 9. These
are to be accomplished, by the provisions of the
events are clearly spelled out in the "Whereas"
statute." (West Norman Timber v. State, 224 P.
clauses of the presidential decree, thus: (1) the
2d 635, 639, cited in Words and Phrases,
state of martial law in the country pursuant to
"Preamble"; emphasis supplied)
Proclamation 1081 dated September 21, 1972;
(2) the desired result of Proclamation 1081 as
well as General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 which are
While the preamble of a statute is not strictly a
particularly mentioned in P.D. 9; and (3) the
part thereof, it may, when the statute is in itself
alleged fact that subversion, rebellion,
ambiguous and difficult of interpretation, be
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality,
resorted to, but not to create a doubt or
chaos, aid public disorder mentioned in
uncertainty which otherwise does not exist."
Proclamation 1081 are committed and abetted
(James v. Du Bois, 16 N.J.L. (1 Har.) 285, 294,
by the use of firearms and explosives and other
cited in Words and Phrases, "Preamble")
deadly weapons.

In Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, et al. v. The City

The Solicitor General however contends that a
of Cebu, et al. this Court had occasion to state
preamble of a statute usually introduced by the
that '(L)egislative intent must be ascertained
word "whereas", is not an essential part of an
from a consideration of the statute as a whole,
act and cannot enlarge or confer powers, or
and not of an isolated part or a particular
cure inherent defects in the statute (p. 120,
provision alone. This is a cardinal rule of
rollo of L-42050-66); that the explanatory note
statutory construction. For taken in the
or enacting clause of the decree, if it indeed
abstract, a word or phrase might easily convey a
limits the violation of the decree, cannot prevail
meaning quite different from the one actually
over the text itself inasmuch as such
intended and evident when the word or phrase
explanatory note merely states or explains the
is considered with those with which it is
reason which prompted the issuance of the
associated. Thus, an apparently general
decree. (pp. 114-115, rollo of 46997)
provision may have a limited application if read
together with other provisions. 9

We disagree with these contentions. Because of

the problem of determining what acts fall
Second, the result or effects of the presidential
within the purview of P.D. 9, it becomes
decree must be within its reason or intent.
necessary to inquire into the intent and spirit of
the decree and this can be found among others
in the preamble or, whereas" clauses which
enumerate the facts or events which justify the In the paragraph immediately following the last
promulgation of the decree and the stiff "Whereas" clause, the presidential decree
sanctions stated therein. states:

11
NOW, THEREFORE, I , FERDINAND E. MARCOS, the forces of our duly constituted government
Commander-in-Chief of an the Armed Forces of and the New People's Army and their satellite
the Philippines, in order to attain the desired organizations because of the unmitigated
result of the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 forays, raids, ambuscades, assaults, violence,
and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby murders, assassinations, acts of terror, deceits,
order and decree that: coercions, threats, intimidations, treachery,
machinations, arsons, plunders and
depredations committed and being committed
xxx xxx xxx by the aforesaid lawless elements who have
pledged to the whole nation that they will not
stop their dastardly effort and scheme until and
From the above it is clear that the acts unless they have fully attained their primary
penalized in P.D. 9 are those related to the and ultimate purpose of forcibly seizing political
desired result of Proclamation 1081 and and state power in this country by overthrowing
General Orders Nos. 6 and 7. General Orders our present duly constituted government, ...
Nos. 6 and 7 refer to firearms and therefore (See Book I, Vital Documents on the Declaration
have no relevance to P.D. 9(3) which refers to of Martial Law in the Philippines by the
blunt or bladed weapons. With respect to Supreme Court of the Philippines, pp. 13-39)
Proclamation 1081 some of the underlying
reasons for its issuance are quoted hereunder:
It follows that it is only that act of carrying a
blunt or bladed weapon with a motivation
WHEREAS, these lawless elements having taken connected with or related to the afore-quoted
up arms against our duly constituted desired result of Proclamation 1081 that is
government and against our people, and having within the intent of P.D. 9(3), and nothing else.
committed and are still committing acts of
armed insurrection and rebellion consisting of
armed raids, forays, sorties, ambushes, wanton Statutes are to be construed in the light of
acts of murders, spoilage, plunder, looting, purposes to be achieved and the evils sought to
arsons, destruction of public and private be remedied. (U.S. v. American Tracking
buildings, and attacks against innocent and Association, 310 U.S. 534, cited in LVN Pictures
defenseless civilian lives and property, all of v. Philippine Musicians Guild, 110 Phil. 725, 731;
which activities have seriously endangered and emphasis supplied)
continue to endanger public order and safety
and the security of the nation, ...
When construing a statute, the reason for its
enactment should be kept in mind, and the
xxx xxx xxx statute should be construed with reference to
its intended scope and purpose. (Statutory
Construction by E.T. Crawford, pp. 604-605,
WHEREAS, it is evident that there is throughout cited in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
the land a state of anarchy and lawlessness, Filipinas Compania de Seguros, 107 Phil. 1055,
chaos and disorder, turmoil and destruction of a 1060; emphasis supplied)
magnitude equivalent to an actual war between

12
 before martial law an extortion-minded peace
officer had to have a stock of the cheapest
5. In the construction of P.D. 9(3) it
paltik, and even that could only convey the
becomes relevant to inquire into the
coercive message of one year in jail, now
consequences of the measure if a strict
anything that has the semblance of a sharp
adherence to the letter of the paragraph is
edge or pointed object, available even in trash
followed.
cans, may already serve the same purpose, and
yet five to ten times more incriminating than
the infamous paltik. (pp. 72-73, rollo L-42050-
It is a salutary principle in statutory construction 66)
that there exists a valid presumption that
undesirable consequences were never intended
by a legislative measure, and that a
And as respondent Judge Maceren points out,
construction of which the statute is fairly
the people's interpretation of P.D. 9(3) results in
susceptible is favored, which will avoid all
absurdity at times. To his example We may add
objectionable, mischievous, indefensible,
a situation where a law-abiding citizen, a lawyer
wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences.9-a
by profession, after gardening in his house
remembers to return the bolo used by him to
his neighbor who lives about 30 meters or so
It is to be presumed that when P.D. 9 was away and while crossing the street meets a
promulgated by the President of the Republic policeman. The latter upon seeing the bolo
there was no intent to work a hardship or an being carried by that citizen places him under
oppressive result, a possible abuse of authority arrest and books him for a violation of P.D. 9(3).
or act of oppression, arming one person with a Could the presidential decree have been
weapon to impose hardship on another, and so conceived to produce such absurd,
on.10 unreasonable, and insensible results?

At this instance We quote from the order of 6. Penal statutes are to be construed
Judge Purisima the following: strictly against the state and liberally in favor of
an accused.

And while there is no proof of it before the

Court, it is not difficult to believe the American jurisprudence sets down the reason
murmurings of detained persons brought to for this rule to be "the tenderness of the law of
Court upon a charge of possession of bladed the rights of individuals; the object is to
weapons under P.D. No. 9, that more than ever establish a certain rule by conformity to which
before, policemen - of course not all can be so mankind would be safe, and the discretion of
heartless — now have in their hands P.D. No. 9 the court limited." 11 The purpose is not to
as a most convenient tool for extortion, what enable a guilty person to escape punishment
with the terrifying risk of being sentenced to through a technicality but to provide a precise
imprisonment of five to ten years for a rusted definition of forbidden acts.12
kitchen knife or a pair of scissors, which only
God knows where it came from. Whereas

13
Our own decisions have set down the same an unjust judgment under Article 204 of the
guidelines in this manner, viz: Revised Penal Code, failure to allege in the
Information that the judgment was rendered
knowing it to be unjust, is fatal. 14
Criminal statutes are to be construed strictly.
No person should be brought within their terms
who is not clearly within them, nor should any In People v. Yadao, 1954, this Court through
act be pronounced criminal which is not made then Justice Cesar Bengzon who later became
clearly so by the statute. (U.S. v. Abad Santos, Chief Justice of the Court affirmed an order of
36 Phil. 243, 246) the trial court which quashed an Information
wherein the facts recited did not constitute a
public offense as defined in Section 1, Republic
The rule that penal statutes are given a strict Act 145. 15
construction is not the only factor controlling
the interpretation of such laws, instead, the rule
merely serves as an additional, single factor to G. The filing of these Petitions was
be considered as an aid in determining the unnecessary because the People could have
meaning of penal laws. (People v. Manantan, 5 availed itself of other available remedies below.
SCRA 684, 692)

Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court

F. The Informations filed by petitioner are follow:
fatally defective.

Rule 117, Section 7. Effect of sustaining the

The two elements of the offense covered by motion to quash. — If the motion to quash is
P.D. 9(3) must be alleged in the Information in sustained the court may order that another
order that the latter may constitute a information be filed. If such order is made the
sufficiently valid charged. The sufficiency of an defendant, if in custody, shall remain so unless
Information is determined solely by the facts he shall be admitted to bail. If such order is not
alleged therein.13 Where the facts are made or if having been made another
incomplete and do not convey the elements of information is not filed withuntime to be
the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in specified in the order, or within such further
order. time as the court may allow for good cause
shown, the defendant, if in custody, shall be
discharged therefrom, unless he is in custody on
Section 2(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court some other charge.
provides that the defendant may move to quash
the complaint or information when the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. Rule 110, Section 13. Amendment. — The
information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or form, without leave of court, at
In U.S.U. Gacutan, 1914, it was held that where any time before the defendant pleads; and
an accused is charged with knowingly rendering thereafter and during the trial as to all matters

14
of form, by leave and at the discretion of the
court, when the same can be done without
Under the foregoing, the filing of another
prejudice to the rights of the defendant.
complaint or Information is barred only when
the criminal action or liability had been
extinguished (Section 2[f]) or when the motion
xxx xxx xxx
to quash was granted for reasons of double
jeopardy. (ibid., [h])

Two courses of action were open to Petitioner

upon the quashing of the Informations in these
As to whether or not a plea of double jeopardy
cases, viz:
may be successfully invoked by the accused in
all these cases should new complaints be filed
against them, is a matter We need not resolve
First, if the evidence on hand so warranted, the for the present.
People could have filed an amended
Information to include the second element of
the offense as defined in the disputed orders of
H. — We conclude with high expectations
respondent Judges. We have ruled that if the
that police authorities and the prosecuting arm
facts alleged in the Information do not
of the government true to the oath of office
constitute a punishable offense, the case should
they have taken will exercise utmost
not be dismissed but the prosecution should be
circumspection and good faith in evaluating the
given an opportunity to amend the
particular circumstances of a case so as to reach
Information.16
a fair and just conclusion if a situation falls
within the purview of P.D. 9(3) and the
prosecution under said decree is warranted and
Second, if the facts so justified, the People justified. This obligation becomes a sacred duty
could have filed a complaint either under in the face of the severe penalty imposed for
Section 26 of Act No. 1780, quoted earlier, or the offense.
Manila City Ordinance No. 3820, as amended by
Ordinance No. 3928, especially since in most if
not all of the cases, the dismissal was made
On this point, We commend the Chief State
prior to arraignment of the accused and on a
Prosecutor Rodolfo A. Nocon on his letter to the
motion to quash.
City Fiscal of Manila on October 15, 1975,
written for the Secretary, now Minister of
Justice, where he stated the following:
Section 8. Rule 117 states that:

In any case, please study well each and every

An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a case of this nature so that persons accused of
bar to another prosecution for the same offense carrying bladed weapons, specially those whose
unless the motion was based on the grounds purpose is not to subvert the duly constituted
specified in section 2, subsections (f) and (h) of authorities, may not be unduly indicted for the
this rule. serious offenses falling under P.D. No. 9.17

15
Yes, while it is not within the power of courts of Separate Opinions
justice to inquire into the wisdom of a law, it is
however a judicial task and prerogative to
determine if official action is within the spirit BARREDO, J., concurring.
and letter of the law and if basic fundamental
rights of an individual guaranteed by the
Constitution are not violated in the process of I concur with the qualification that under
its implementation. We have to face the fact existing jurisprudence conviction is possible,
that it is an unwise and unjust application of a without the need of amending the information,
law, necessary and justified under prevailing for violation of other laws or ordinances on
circumstances, which renders the measure an concealment of deadly weapons.
instrument of oppression and evil and leads the
citizenry to lose their faith in their government.
Makasiar, J, concurs.

WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 Petitions for CONCEPCION, JR., J, concurring:

Review and We AFFIRM the Orders of
respondent Judges dismissing or quashing the
Information concerned, subject however to Our I concur with the additional observation that
observations made in the preceding pages 23 to accused could properly be convicted of a
25 of this Decision regarding the right of the violation of Act 1780 of the Philippine
State or Petitioner herein to file either an Commission or of the ordinance.
amended Information under Presidential
Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, or a new one under
other existing statute or city ordinance as the Separate Opinions
facts may warrant.

BARREDO, J., concurring.

Without costs.

I concur with the qualification that under

SO ORDERED. existing jurisprudence conviction is possible,
without the need of amending the information,
for violation of other laws or ordinances on
Fernando, Teehankee, Santos, Fernandez and concealment of deadly weapons.
Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Castro, C.J. and Antonio, J, concur in the result.

Makasiar, J, concurs.
Aquino, J, took no part.
CONCEPCION, JR., J, concurring:

16
I concur with the additional observation that 11 United States v. Harris, 177 US 305, 44 L
accused could properly be convicted of a Ed 780, 20 S Ct 609; Braffith v. Virgin Islands
violation of Act 1780 of the Philippine (CA3) 26 F2d 646; Caudill v. State, 224 Ind 531,
Commission or of the ordinance. 69 NE2d 549; Jennings v. Commonwealth, 109
Va 821, 63 SE 1080, all cited in 73 Am Jur 2d
452.
Footnotes
12 State v. Zazzaro, 20 A 2d 737, quoted in
Martin's Handbook on Statutory Construction,
Rev. Ed. pp. 183-184.
1 p. 118, rollo of L-42050-66.
13 People v. Supnad, 7 SCRA 603, 606.
2 pp. 10-11, brief of Petitioner at p. 218,
Ibid. 14 28 Phil. See Moran, Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., Vol. 4, p. 222.
3 Art. IV, Sec. 19, 1973 Constitution.
15 94 Phil. 726.
4 Francisco on the Revised Rules of Court,
1969 Ed., Vol. on Criminal Procedure, p. 86. 16 People v. Plaza, 7 SCRA 617.

5 pp. 33-34 brief of Petitioner filed by the 17 This letter which was addressed to the
City Fiscal of Manila. City Fiscal of Manila referred to a decision of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III,
6 Valera v. Tuason, Jr., et al., 80 Phil. 823, in Criminal Case No. 21178, "People vs. Conrado
citing U.S. v. Palacio, 33 Phil. 208; Quisumbing v. C. Petate, "for violation of Presidential Decree
Lachica, 2 SCRA 182; Almeda v. Florentino, 15 No. 9.
SCRA 514; Lechoco v. Civil Aeronautics Board,
43 SCRA 670.

7 People v. Elkanish, 1951, 90 Phil. 53, 57

People v. Yadao, 1954, 94 Phil. 726, 728.

8 33 SCRA 105. See also 73 Am Jur 2d 351

citing United States v. N.E. Rosenblum Truck
Lines, Inc., 315 US 50,86 L Ed 671; United States
v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 US 225, 71 L Ed
1013; Ebert v. Poston, 266 US 548, 69 L Ed 435;
Wisconsin C.R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 US 46,40 L
Ed 71.

9 13 SCRA 449, 453; Emphasis supplied.

9-a 73 Am Jur 2d 428.

10 See 73 Am Jur 2d 432-433 for cases on

the foregoing undesirable consequences.

17