G.R. No. 265123 , July 29, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. RONNEL BUENAFE BERCADEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Ronnel Bercadez was charged with a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 (B.P. Blg. 6). The Metropolitan Trial Court ordered the quashal of the Information. The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia in denying the Petition to reverse this quashal. The core factual basis for the concurrence is that the Information filed against Bercadez was defective as it failed to allege all the essential elements of the crime. B.P. Blg. 6 is an amendatory law that must be read in conjunction with Presidential Decree No. 9 ( P.D. No. 9 ), which it amended. The crime, as defined by P.D. No. 9 , paragraph 3, as amended, carries two elements: (1) the carrying outside one’s residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood or lawful activity; 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 against Bercadez failed to allege this second element. Bercadez also contended in his motion to quash that P.D. No. 9 and B.P. Blg. 6 have ceased to have legal force as the reason for their enactment (martial law) has ceased.

ISSUE

Whether the Information filed against respondent Ronnel Bercadez for violation of B.P. Blg. 6 was sufficient, given the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

RULING

The concurring opinion concurs in the denial of the Petition, holding that the Information was defective and insufficient. An Information must clearly and sufficiently allege all the elements and facts constituting the crime to satisfy the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. Citing People v. Purisima, the crime of violating P.D. No. 9 , paragraph 3 (as amended by B.P. Blg. 6) has two essential elements, the second being the motivational element linking the carrying of the weapon to subversion, rebellion, lawless violence, etc. The Information against Bercadez fatally omitted this second element. Therefore, the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly quashed it. On the ancillary issue of the continuing applicability of P.D. No. 9 as amended, raised by Bercadez, the opinion notes that while the Court in Buella v. People refrained from ruling on it due to lack of an actual case, the principle cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (where the reason for the law ceases, the law itself ceases) may be relevant, as P.D. No. 9 was enacted to attain the objectives of martial law, which has terminated. The opinion expresses the view that the Court may address this constitutional question in this case.