PEOPLE V.

PURISIMA
G.R. Nos. 42050-66 November 20, 1978

FACTS:
26 petitions for review were filed against judges of three Courts of First Instance, namely: Hon.
Amante P. Purisima, Hon. Maximo Maceren and Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo. They were charged
with the violation of Presidential Decree No. 9 for the “illegal possession of deadly weapons.”

The respondent judges filed a motion to quash the information filed against them, claiming that
the information failed to allege the facts that constitute the offense penalized by PD No. 9, and
that it omitted the essential element of the crime contemplated, specifically that: the carrying
outside of the accused’s residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon must be done in
furtherance or on occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or
rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder.

To omit this element of the law would hold liable under PD No. 9 any individual who happens to
have with him a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon regardless of intent behind the same. To
interpret the law this way would hold liable even a person carrying a pair of scissors, or one
carrying a kitchen knife to be used to cook a meal.

Thus, present in P.D. No. 9 is an ambiguity, converting the case at bar into one of statutory
construction.

ISSUE: Whether P.D. No. 9 holds liable any person who carries a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon
outside of his residence regardless of the motivation behind such act? NO

RATIO:
When ambiguity exists, it becomes a judicial task to interpret the law’s true meaning, guided by
the basic principle that penal laws are to be construed and applied liberally in favor of the accused
and strictly against the state. In the interpretation of a legislative measure, the primary rule is to
determine the intent and spirit of the law, for legislative intent is the controlling factor.

There are certain aids made available to the Court in this case to ascertain the intent behind P.D.
9, among them being the presence of events which led to the enactment of P.D. 9, found in the
“whereas” clauses of the decree.

(1) the state of martial law in the country pursuant to Proclamation 1081 dated
September 21, 1972; (2) the desired result of Proclamation 1081 as well as General
Orders Nos. 6 and 7 which are particularly mentioned in P.D. 9; and (3) the alleged
fact that subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, and
public disorder mentioned in Proclamation 1081 are committed and abetted by the
use of firearms and explosives and other deadly weapons.
The Solicitor General argues that a preamble of a statute is not an essential part of it, and it
cannot cure inherent defects of the statute or prevail over the text itself. The Court disagreed.

The Court found it necessary to inquire into the spirit of P.D. No. 9 through, among others, the
preamble or “whereas” clauses of the same.

"A 'preamble' is the key of the statute, to open the minds of the makers as to the mischiefs which
are to be remedied, and objects which are to be accomplished, by the provisions of the statute."

"While the preamble of a statute is not strictly a part thereof, it may, when the statute is in itself
ambiguous and difficult of interpretation, be resorted to, but not to create a doubt or uncertainty
which otherwise does not exist."

In the paragraph immediately following the last "Whereas" clause, the presidential decree states:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Commander-in-Chief of all the

Armed Forces of the Philippines, in order to attain the desired result of the
aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby order
and decree that:
"xxx xxx xxx"

From the above it is clear that the acts penalized in P.D. 9 are those related to the desired result
of Proclamation 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, which was to abet subversion, rebellion,
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public disorder in light of the martial law
period.

Thus, it follows that what the decree punishes is the act of carrying a blunt or bladed weapon
done in furtherance or on occasion of, connected with or related to subversion, insurrection, or
rebellion, organized lawlessness or public disorder.