G.R. No. L-80066. May 24, 1988.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MAXIMIANO ASUNCION, as Presiding Judge, Branch 104, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Quezon City, and ROLANDO ABADILLA, respondents.

FACTS

On July 30, 1987, an Information was filed charging Rolando Abadilla with Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition). The Information alleged that on or about July 27, 1987, in Quezon City, Abadilla, without legal authority, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession and control various firearms and ammunition without the necessary license or permit. The accused filed a motion to quash the Information.
The respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the Information in a Resolution dated September 1, 1987. The dismissal was based on the ground that the Information did not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense. The court reasoned that, during the period covered by Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222, which provided a grace period for surrendering unlicensed firearms, mere possession was not illegal per se. The Information lacked allegations that the firearms were carried outside the accused’s residence (except for surrender) or were used in the commission of another crime. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the People to file this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Information for Violation of P.D. No. 1866 on the ground that it failed to allege facts constituting an offense, considering the effect of Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the orders of the respondent Judge. The Court held that the dismissal was legally correct. Applying jurisprudence interpreting similar statutes, such as Republic Act No. 4 , which provided a period for surrender without criminal liability, the Court ruled that during the grace period established by Executive Orders Nos. 107 and 222, the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm, by itself, was not punishable. Criminal liability attached only if, within that period, the possessor either carried the firearm outside his residence (unless for surrender) or used it in the commission of another offense. These conditions were essential ingredients of the offense during the amnesty period.
Since the Information only alleged bare possession and failed to aver that the accused carried the firearms outside his residence or used them in another crime, it did not charge any offense at all. The prosecution’s argument that it could prove carrying outside the residence during trial was untenable, as evidence cannot validate a void information that legally charges no offense. The Court emphasized its duty to apply the law equally, irrespective of the accused’s identity or public perception, and found that the respondent Judge committed no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the fatally defective Information.