Republic of the Philippines

10th Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Cagayan de Oro City
-o0o-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO.2019-100

Plaintiff,
FOR: CONCEALING DEADLY
WEAPON
-versus-

Sheldon Cooper,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------/

I N FO R MAT I O N

The undersigned, Assistant City Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City,

accuses SHELDON COOPER of the crime of CONCEALING DEADLY
WEAPON committed as follows:

That on July 18, 2019 at more or less 12:11 noon in the

National Highway, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines and
within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with deliberate intent to use, have in his
possession and under his custody and control a deadly
weapon to wit: a knife measuring 12 inches long, which he
carried concealed in his person.

Contrary to and in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 6.

Cagayan de Oro City, July 18, 2019.

Sgd.
DAMIEN VILLANUEVA
Assistant City Prosecutor
 Republic of the Philippines
10th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Cagayan de Oro City
-o0o-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO.2019-100

Plaintiff,
FOR: CONCEALING DEADLY
WEAPON
-versus-

Sheldon Cooper,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------/

MOTION TO QUASH

COMES NOW accused SHELDON COOPER, through the Public

Attorney’s Office by the undersigned counsel and unto the Honorable Court,
most respectfully files this instant Motion to Quash on the following ground:

THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION

DO NOT CONSITITUE AN OFFENSE

The Information filed against the accused reads:

That on July 18, 2019 at more or less 12:11 noon in the National
Highway, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines and within the
Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with
deliberate intent to use, have in his possession and under his
custody and control a deadly weapon to wit: a knife measuring
12 inches long, which he carried concealed in his person

Contrary to and in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 6.

Cagayan de Oro City, July 18, 2019.

The accused respectfully submits that the Information filed against

him does not constitute an offense since all the elements required for the
proper prosecution under Batas Pambansa Bilang 6 are not present.
 Considering that Batas Pambansa Bilang 6 is an amendment of
paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 9 and thus should be interpreted in
like manner, the Supreme Court ratiocinated in People vs Purisima, G.R. No.
L-42050-66, November 20, 1978:

xxx

What then are the elements of the offense treated in the presidential
decree in question?

We hold that the offense carries two elements: 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.

It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly

weapon, if concealed, outside the scope of the statute or the city ordinance
mentioned above. In other words, a simple act of carrying any of the
weapons described in the presidential decree is not a criminal offense in
itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable under the decree is the
motivation behind it. Without that motivation, the act falls within the
purview of the city ordinance or some statute when the circumstances
warrant.

xxx

Thus, accused respectfully submits that lacking the second element,

the Information filed against the accused does not constitute an offense.

Further, in the same case cited above, the Supreme Court dictated:

xxx

The two elements of the offense covered by P.D.9(3) must be alleged

in the Information in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid
charge. The sufficiency of Information is determined solely by the facts
alleged therein. Where the fact are incomplete and do not convey the
elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order.

xxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the Information filed against the accused be
dismissed.
 Other reliefs, just and equitable under premises, are likewise prayed
for.

July 22, 2019 at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Cagayan de Oro City

By:

sgd
JOHN PERALTA
 Republic of the Philippines
10th Judicial Region
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Cagayan de Oro City
-o0o-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO.2019-100

Plaintiff,
FOR: CONCEALING DEADLY
WEAPON
-versus-

Sheldon Cooper,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------/

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO QUASH

The Prosecution, to this Honorable Court, respectfully files this

Opposition to the accused’s Motion to Quash, to wit:

With all due respect, nowhere in Purisima1 did the Supreme Court
make a pronouncement that Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 6 shall be defined
and interpreted in the light of the elements of the offense charged in
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 9. It must be borne in mind that Purisima,
involving an incident that took place on January 28, 1977, was decided on
November 20, 1978; and a day after, on November 21, 1978, B.P. Blg. 6
amending P.D. No. 9 was approved and took effect as a law.

Purisima was reiterated in People vs. Rogelio Lasanas, et al.,2

decided on July 7, 1987, involving a violation of “General Orders Nos. 6
and 7 (dated 22 and 23 September 1972, respectively) in relation to
Presidential Decree No. 9 (dated 2 October 1972)” which was allegedly
committed on July 10, 1974. Apparently, Lasanas took place before the
passage of B.P. Blg. 6. The Supreme Court, however, made the following
footnote in Lasanas:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 6, enacted on 21 November 1978, may have

sought to undo the effects of the decision of the Court in Purisima by
amending paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9 so as to penalize the act of carrying
outside of one’s residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon as a
1
People vs.Honorable Judge Amante P. Purisima, et al., G.R. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978.
2
G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7,1987.
malum prohibitum, except where such articles were used as necessary tools
or implements to earn a livelihood or in pursuit of a lawful activity. B.P.
Blg. 6 reduced the penalty to imprisonment of not less than one month, and
not more than one year or a fine of not less than P200.00 and not more than
P2,000.00 or both such imprisonment an fine. We cannot apply B.P. Blg. 6
to the instant case, Criminal Case No. 5055, since B.P. Blg. 6 is not more
favorable to Rogelio Lasanas than the original paragraph 3 P.D. No. 9
as construed in Purisima.3

The foregoing footnote constitutes a judicial pronouncement to treat

B.P. Blg. 6 differently from how the offense charge in Purisima was
construed, so that the Supreme Court applied Purisima in Lasanas “since
B.P. Blg.6 is not more favorable to Rogilio Lasanas than the original
paragraph 3 P.D. No. 9 as construed in Purisima.”

Corollarily, a reasonable construction of the amendatory provision in

B.P. Blg. 6 yields to a plain and simple import that the said law punishes the
mere “carrying outside of one’s residence any bladed, pointed or blunt
weapon,” like a 12-inch knife subject in this case, provided the same is not
“being used as (a) necessary tool(s) or implement(s) to earn a livelihood or
in pursuit of a lawful activity,” without any further qualification “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.” Imposing any such qualification
would gravely thwart law enforcement and undermine the prosecution of
lawless elements, leaving the community vulnerable to criminality.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Court that the Motion To Quash filed by the
accused be DENIED for lack of merit.

Such other relief and remedies, just and equitable under the
circumstances, are also prayed for.

Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, 25 July 2019.

Sgd.
DAMIEN VILLANUEVA
Assistant City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorney’s No.xxx
IBP Lifetime Member ID No. xxx
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000732
Valid Until April 14, 2022

3
G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987.