People v. Bercadez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ronnel Buenafe Bercadez (Bercadez) was arrested after individuals informed arresting officers of an alleged attempted robbery. During the arrest, a knife was found tucked in Bercadez's waist. He was subsequently charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6) for carrying a bladed weapon outside his residence, not as a tool for livelihood or lawful activity. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted Bercadez's Motion to Quash the Information, finding that it failed to allege essential elements required by Presidential Decree No. 9 (P.D. No. 9), as amended by B.P. Blg. 6. Specifically, the MeTC noted the absence of an allegation that the carrying of the weapon was in furtherance of subversion, rebellion, or public disorder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, ruling that B.P. Blg. 6 created a separate offense and did not require the second element. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the MeTC's ruling, holding that B.P. Blg. 6 merely reduced the penalty for the offense defined in P.D. No. 9 and did not remove an essential element. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Information for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 is fatally defective for failing to allege that the carrying of the bladed weapon was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder. Whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 created a new and distinct offense separate from Presidential Decree No. 9, thereby dispensing with the requirement of the second element. Whether the prosecution should have been given an opportunity to amend the Information.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision, holding that the Information was correctly quashed. The Court reiterated that Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 is an amendatory law to Presidential Decree No. 9 and must be read in conjunction with it. The elements of the offense, as established in People v. Purisima and People v. Lasanas, including the requirement that the carrying of the weapon be in furtherance of subversion, rebellion, or public disorder, remain essential. The Information, failing to allege this second element, is defective. The Court also clarified the rules regarding amendment of Informations before plea.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defectiveness of the Information: The Court held that Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6) is an amendatory law to Presidential Decree No. 9 (P.D. No. 9) and cannot be read independently of the law it amends. The title of B.P. Blg. 6 explicitly states it amends P.D. No. 9. Therefore, the elements of the offense as established in People v. Purisima and People v. Lasanas remain applicable. These elements are: (1) the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon not used as a necessary tool or implement for livelihood; and (2) 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 Information in this case only alleged the first element, failing to state the second essential element, thus rendering it fatally defective. The Court emphasized that a simple act of carrying a weapon is not criminal unless it is done with the specified motivation under P.D. No. 9. The ruling in Purisima clearly established this two-element requirement, which was reiterated in Lasanas. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established jurisprudence. On whether B.P. Blg. 6 created a new offense: The Court ruled in the negative. It found that B.P. Blg. 6 did not intend to define a new crime separate from P.D. No. 9. Instead, it merely amended P.D. No. 9 by changing the examples of prohibited weapons, lowering the penalty, and adding "in pursuit of a lawful activity" as an exception. The legislative intent, as gleaned from the title of B.P. Blg. 6, was to reduce the penalty for illegal possession of bladed weapons, not to create a new offense with different elements. Consequently, the established elements from Purisima and Lasanas must still be alleged in the Information for violation of P.D. No. 9, as amended by B.P. Blg. 6. The Court explicitly stated that B.P. Blg. 6, as an amendatory law, must be read in conjunction with P.D. No. 9. The Court reiterated the two elements of the crime for the guidance of the bench and bar. On the opportunity to amend the Information: The Court held that the MeTC correctly quashed the Information without prejudice to the filing of a correct one. While Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides an opportunity to correct defects by amendment, this is generally applicable when leave of court is necessary, typically after the accused has entered a plea. In this case, the Motion to Quash was filed before Bercadez entered his plea. Under Rule 110, Section 14, the prosecution could have amended the Information on its own without leave of court. Since no court order was necessary for amendment at this stage, the prosecution had the opportunity to correct the defect but failed to do so. Therefore, the MeTC was not remiss in its duty by quashing the Information and allowing the filing of a new one. The Court also noted that any refiling of the Information would be subject to the law on prescription.
Main Doctrine
Batas Pambansa Blg. 6, as an amendatory law to Presidential Decree No. 9, must be read in conjunction with the original law. The elements of the crime under P.D. No. 9, as reiterated in People v. Purisima and People v. Lasanas, which include the carrying of a weapon in furtherance of subversion, rebellion, or public disorder, remain applicable. An Information failing to allege this second element is fatally defective.