The petitions filed by the People of the Philippines were consolidated into one decision as they involved the same question of law. Informations were filed charging accused individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. The judges dismissed the informations on the grounds that they did not allege all essential elements of the crime. The issues are whether the informations were sufficient and if they properly charged the offense under Presidential Decree No. 9. The court dismissed the petitioner's motions and affirmed the decisions of the respondent judges, holding that the offense has two elements - carrying a weapon outside one's residence and that the act was in furtherance of subversion or disorder - and statutory construction must consider legislative intent to avoid
The petitions filed by the People of the Philippines were consolidated into one decision as they involved the same question of law. Informations were filed charging accused individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. The judges dismissed the informations on the grounds that they did not allege all essential elements of the crime. The issues are whether the informations were sufficient and if they properly charged the offense under Presidential Decree No. 9. The court dismissed the petitioner's motions and affirmed the decisions of the respondent judges, holding that the offense has two elements - carrying a weapon outside one's residence and that the act was in furtherance of subversion or disorder - and statutory construction must consider legislative intent to avoid
The petitions filed by the People of the Philippines were consolidated into one decision as they involved the same question of law. Informations were filed charging accused individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. The judges dismissed the informations on the grounds that they did not allege all essential elements of the crime. The issues are whether the informations were sufficient and if they properly charged the offense under Presidential Decree No. 9. The court dismissed the petitioner's motions and affirmed the decisions of the respondent judges, holding that the offense has two elements - carrying a weapon outside one's residence and that the act was in furtherance of subversion or disorder - and statutory construction must consider legislative intent to avoid
The petitions filed by the People of the Philippines were consolidated into one decision as they involved the same question of law. Informations were filed charging accused individuals with illegal possession of deadly weapons in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. The judges dismissed the informations on the grounds that they did not allege all essential elements of the crime. The issues are whether the informations were sufficient and if they properly charged the offense under Presidential Decree No. 9. The court dismissed the petitioner's motions and affirmed the decisions of the respondent judges, holding that the offense has two elements - carrying a weapon outside one's residence and that the act was in furtherance of subversion or disorder - and statutory construction must consider legislative intent to avoid
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
G.R. No.
L-42050-66 November 20, 1978
PEOPLE VS. PURISIMA
FACTS: There are 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. Before those courts, Informations were filed charging the respective accused with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash filed by the accused, the three Judges mentioned above issued in the respective cases filed before them — the details of which will be recounted below — an Order quashing or dismissing the Informations, on a common ground, viz, that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by Presidential Decree No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime.
ISSUES: 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 (PD for short) No. 9?
There are two elements to the the offense: first, the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
The petitioner by having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous weapon outside of the residence w/o regard to motive or intent makes this a case of statutory construction.
HELD:
COURT DISMISSED ALL MOTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMS ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGES.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
The problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of a statute, it becomes 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 promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein.
It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid
presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequence.
