People vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542, No.

L-42050-66,
No. L-46229-32, No. L-46313-16, No. L-46997
November 20, 1978

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.

The petition is DISMISSED.