People vs. Purisima
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.
G.R. No. L-42050-66
November 20, 1978
FACTS:
Pursuant to P.D. 9, penalizing the illegal possession of deadly weapons, a total of 26 people were charged for the mere act of carrying deadly weapons. Respondent Judge Purisima, et. al. dismissed or quashed all the informations filed in their respective courts for failing to allege that the carrying outside of the accused’s residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon is in furtherance of or on the occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder. Based on the literal import P.D. 9, the People argue that the prohibited acts need not be related to subversive activities as such are essentially a malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public policy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mere carrying of deadly weapons constitute a crime under P.D. 9.
HELD:
No, it is not the intention of P.D. No. 9 to punish the mere carrying of deadly weapons.
In the construction or interpretation of a legislative measure, the primary rule is to search for and determine the intent and spirit of the law. Legislative intent is the controlling factor. Whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, and this has to be so if strict adherence to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice and contradictions.
In this case, when P.D. No. 9 was promulgated, there was no intent to work a hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse of authority or act of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to impose hardship on another, and so on. The act of carrying a blunt or bladed weapon must be with a motivation connected with the desired result of Proclamation 1081 (suppressing criminality, etc.) that is within the intent of P.D. No. 9.
As regards the purpose of P.D. 9 contemplated in its preamble, the carrying of deadly weapons outside the residence must be related to subversive or criminal activities to constitute a crime. Penalizing the mere act of carrying deadly weapons would lead to injustice, hardships and unreasonable consequences, never intended by a legislative measure. Hence, the mere carrying of deadly weapons do not constitute a crime under P.D. 9.
HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.
HELLO!For attribution or removal, contact us.