People v Purisima

Doctrine:

In 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.
To inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree, it is found among others in
the preamble or, whereas clauses which enumerate the facts of evens which
justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein.

Facts:
Petitioners here are the people of the Philippines against respondent Judges
Purisima, Maceren, and Polo for dismissing the charge of the accused in their
courts in violation of PD NO. 9 (3) or the unlawful carrying outside of
residence any bladed pointed or blunt weapon.
Respondents arguments
Respondent judges argue that (1) the said decree is used in extortion by the
police (Purisima); the desired results of the decree is to prevent subversion,
insurrection or rebellion, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public
disorder, but the mere carrying of the deadly weapons is not unlawful
(Maceren); it is common to carry weapons in rural areas and not necessarily
for committing a crime, but is used for self-defence in going to and from their
farms.
Petitioners Arguments
1. Petitioners claim that previous ordinances is impliedly repealed by said PD
2. Petitioners, lead by SolGen and City Fiscal of Manila and the Provincial Fiscal
of Samar filed the case to set aside orders of dismissal by the said judges.
Petitioners argue that the said P.D. 9 (3) need not be related to subversive
activities; that the said decree is essentially a malum prohibitum and should
be penalized for reasons of public policy.
3. That is all situations where a person carries a weapon outside his residence it
is a crime and irrespective of motivation, intent or purpose, carrying the said
weapons should be penalized
4. SolGen contends that a preamble of a statute usually introduced by the word
whereas is not an essential part of an act and cannot enlarge or confer
powers or cure inherent defects in the statute.
Issue/Held:

Whether or not the petitioners arguments as to the intention and

scope of PD No. 9 (3) correct?
NO,

1. There were not repealing clause in the said P.D. and repealing by
implication is not favoured, especially with penal statutes where the
law is construed in favour of the accused.
2. In studying the elements of the said decree, there were 2 identified: 1.
Carrying outside ones residence of any bladed, blunt or pointed
weapon, etc. not used for livelihood; 2. 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 carrying of the weapon is not a crime in itself,
what makes it punishable is the motivation behind it. Which the
respondent judges correctly ruled on.
3. If there is ambiguity in the PD from the conflicting views of its
implementation, it becomes a judicial task to construe the meaning in
favour of the accused and strictly against the state.
4. The primary rule is to search for and determine the intent and spirit of
the law. Legislative intent is the controlling factor. Citing Justice Claudio
Teehankee: 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. Aids to help the court
determine the purpose can be found first in the preamble and the
preamble states that: 1. The state of martial law; 2. The desired result
of Proclamation 1081 as well as G) # 6 and 7 as particularly mentioned
in PD 9; 3. Alleged fact that subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless
violence, criminality, chaos and public disorder are committed and
abetted by the use of firearms and explosives and other deadly
weapons. Second: the effect of the PD must be within the reason or
intent
That in proclamation 1081 and GO 6-7, it refers to firearms and
therefore have no relevance to PD 9 (3)
5. Filing by the petitioners was unnecessary because the People could
have availed itself of other available remedies.
People could have filed an amendment Information to include
the second elemt of the offense as defined in the disputed
orders of the respondent Judges.
People could have filed a complaint either under Section 26 of
Act No. 1789 or Manila City Ordinance No. 3829 as amended by
Ordinance No. 3928 since the dismissal was made prior to
arraignment and on a motion to quash.