Case: People vs. Purisima, G.R. No.

L-42050-66 Facts: This case actually involves 17 petitions, in which

informations in each petition were filed against the respective accused with “illegal possession of deadly
weapon” in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3. The accused in each petition filed a
motion to quash, and the judge concur...red with the motions filed, filing an order to quash or dismiss
the said informations on the ground that that the information in each petition did not assert facts which
constitute the offense penalized by P.D. No. 9, paragraph 3 because it failed to state one essential
element of the crime. In one case, the information contended that the accused carried a carving knife 6
inches long, which the accused carried outside of his residence, not being used as a tool or something
for him to earn his livelihood, nor being used in an activity that has connection therewith, which the
information concluded as contrary to law. The judge who handled the case, Amante Purisima, ruled that
the information should have shown that the possession of the bladed weapon was for the purpose of
carrying out or worsening of criminality, organized lawlessness, public disorder, etc. in accordance to
what is being mentioned in Proclamation 1081. The information filed didn’t have the requirement, since
the accused didn’t have the motivation to carry out lawlessness as was in Proclamation 1081, since the
bladed weapon is concealed. Hence, it doesn’t establish the facts to constitute an offense against P.D.
9(3). The petitioner argues that P.D. 9(3) punishes mala prohibita acts, hence for public policy.
Furthermore, the presidential decree here doesn’t only condemn carrying a bladed weapon in
connection with the commission of the crime, but in relation to criminality as a whole which
characterized the pre-martial law era. The petitioner further said that the 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, and that the explanatory note or enacting clause of the
decree, if it provides limits to the violation of the decree, cannot prevail over the text itself because the
explanatory note merely states or explains the reason which prompted the issuance of the decree.