Illegal possession of deadly weapons (non-firearms)

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 05:58 PM

Para sa mga survivalist na tsikot members. :D

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 9 October 2, 1972

DECLARING VIOLATIONS OF GENERAL ORDERS NO. 6 AND NO. 7 DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1972 AND SEPTEMBER 23, 1972, RESPECTIVELY, TO BE UNLAWFUL AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, the Philippines has been placed under a state of martial law;

WHEREAS, by virtue of said Proclamation No. 1081, General Order No. 6 dated September 22, 1972 and General Order No. 7 dated September 23, 1972, have been promulgated by me;

WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminally, chaos and public disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms, explosives and other deadly weapons;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, in order to attain the desired result of the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby order and decree that:

1. Any violation of the aforesaid General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 is unlawful and the violator shall, upon conviction suffer:

(a) The mandatory penalty of death by a firing squad or electrocution as a military court/tribunal/commission may direct, if the firearm involved in the violation is unlicensed and is attended by assault upon, or resistance to persons in authority or their agents in the performance of their official functions resulting in death to said persons in authority or their agent; of if such unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of crimes against persons, property or chastity causing the death of the victim, or used in violation of any other General Orders and/or Letters of Instructions Promulgated under said Proclamation No. 1081;]

(b) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty years to life imprisonment as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct, when the violation is not attended by any of the circumstances enumerated under the preceding paragraph;

(c) The penalty provided for in the preceding paragraphs shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, members of the board of directors or other responsible officers of any public or private firms, companies, corporations or entities who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity concerned to be used in violation of said General Orders No. 6 and 7.

2. It is unlawful to possess deadly weapons, including hand-grenades, rifle grenades and other explosives, including, but not limited to, "pill box bombs," "molotov cocktail bombs," "fire bombs," or other incendiary device consisting of any chemical, chemical compound, or detonating agents containing combustible units or other ingredients in such proportion, quantity, packing, or bottling that ignites by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of all or part of the compound or mixture which may cause such a sudden generation of highly heated gases that the resultant gaseous pressures are capable of producing destructive effects on contiguous objects or of causing injury or death of a person; and any person convicted thereof shall be punished by imprisonment ranging from ten to fifteen years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.

3. It is unlawful to carry outside of residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as "fanknife," "spear," "dagger," "bolo," "balisong," "barong," "kris," or club, except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood and while being sued in connection therewith; and any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to ten years as a Military Court/Tribunal/Commission may direct.

4. When the violation penalized in the preceding paragraphs 2 and 3 is committed during the commission of or for the purpose of committing, any other crime, the penalty shall be imposed upon the offender in its maximum extent, in addition to the penalty provided for the particular offenses committed or intended to be committed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.

BATAS PAMBANSA Blg. 6 November 21, 1978

AN ACT REDUCING THE PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF BLADED, POINTED OR BLUNT WEAPONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED NINE.

Section 1. Paragraph three of Presidential Decree Numbered Nine is hereby amended to read as follows:

"3. It is unlawful to carry outside of one's residence any bladed, pointed or blunt weapon such as "knife", "spear", "pana", "dagger", "bolo", "barong", "kris", or "chako", except where such articles are being used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood or in pursuit of a lawful activity. Any person found guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than one year or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos nor more than Two Thousand Pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine as the Court may direct."

Section 2. Article twenty-two of the Revised Penal Code shall apply to persons previously convicted under paragraph three of Presidential Decree Numbered Nine.

Section 3. Any law or ordinance which is inconsistent herewith is hereby repealed.

Section 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: November 21, 1978

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 05:59 PM

PD 9 as amended by BP 6 is a POLITICAL CRIME?

The original law punishing the offense allegedly committed by herein Accused is Presidential Decree No. 9. Batas Pambansa Bilang 6 amended the said special law.

Because of the problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of PD No. 9, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in the preamble or "whereas" clauses which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein. The "whereas" clauses of PD No. 9 spelled out the following events that precipitate the enactment thereof: (1) the state of martial law in the country pursuant to proclamation 1081 dated September 21, 1972; (2) the desired result of Proclamation 1081 as well as General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 which are particularly mentioned in P.D. 9; and (3) the alleged fact that subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, and public disorder mentioned in Proclamation 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of firearms and explosives and other deadly weapons. It follows that it is only that act of carrying a blunt or bladed weapon with a motivation connected with or related to the afore-quoted desired result of Proclamation 1081 that is within the intent of PD No. 9, and nothing else. Simple act of carrying any of the weapons described in PD No. 9 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 does not fall within the purview of the PD No. 9. (People vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-42050-66, November 20, 1978)

The purposes of PD No. 9 as stated in the “whereas” clauses leave no room for doubt that indeed said Decree was issued to further the ends for which Martial Law was declared, that is, to repel, or at least to prevent the spread of rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, sedition, criminality, chaos and public disorder. In other words, the raison d' etre for PD No. 9 is primarily linked with the political purposes for which Proclamation No. 1081 was proclaimed. (Bermudez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47121, July 30, 1979)

PD No. 9 was issued as an offshoot of Proclamation No. 1081, otherwise known as the Martial Law Proclamation. Said Proclamation No. 1081 was declared by the President in view of the situation then attending in our country. In other words, there was reason of primary national interest which led to the said proclamation. And to add more teeth to the same, the President issued PD No. 9 which was to repel rebellion, insurrection and sedition then becoming widespread in this country or to prevent at least the further spread of the same. So that, it can be said and admitted that the issuance of PD No. 9 was based on Proclamation No. 1081. In fact, the “whereas” clauses of PD No. 9 will show that the reason of the President in so decreeing the same was political in nature to better attain the political purposes for which Proclamation No. 1081 was proclaimed. (People vs. Abril, G.R. No. L-46265, February 28, 1978)

In this light, an element surfaces as essential for conviction under PD No. 9, and that is, that the carrying of the prohibited weapon was made in connection with the crime of subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public disorder mentioned in Proclamation No. 1081, considering the penalty attached thereto. Absent this essential element as in this case, an acquittal must follow. (Bermudez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47121, July 30, 1979)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The information alleged that accused carries outside of his residence a deadly weapon, which was not being used by him as a necessary implement for his livelihood or occupation or in connection therewith. Applying the doctrine of Purisima, it is plain that the information was fatally defective. That information failed to charge the commission of acts constitutive of the second element of the offense sought to be charged-i.e., that the carrying of the weapon was in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with "subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violation, criminality, chaos or public disorder." Thus, the information failed to charge an offense under PD No. 9 with the result that accused could not have been lawfully convicted of such offense under the information as actually filed. (People vs. Lasanas, G.R. No. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987)

In his last assignment of error, appellant contends that he could not be convicted for violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. In the light of our ruling in a joint decision rendered in the cases cited as footnotes hereof, the contention is meritorious. The solicitor General also agrees with appellant with his observation that the bolo (Exh. B) used in the hacking of Humberto Hamo was not proven to be a weapon used in the furtherance of subversion, rebellion of other public disorders mentioned in Presidential Decree No. 1081, which is an essential element of the crime defined in said Decree, as We held in the aforecited cases. (People v. Bermoy, G.R. Nos. L-48502-03 June 17, 1981)

Caveat

Footnote number 10 of People v. 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 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 and 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.”

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 06:05 PM

People v. Purisima (supra)

1. Judge Purisima reasoned out, inter alia, in this manner:

.. the Court is of the opinion that in order that possession of bladed weapon or the like outside residence may be prosecuted and tried under P.D. No. 9, the information must specifically allege that the possession of bladed weapon charged was for the purpose of abetting, or in furtherance of the conditions of rampant criminality, organized lawlessness, public disorder, etc. as are contemplated and recited in Proclamation No. 1081, as justification therefor. Devoid of this specific allegation, not necessarily in the same words, the information is not complete, as it does not allege sufficient facts to constitute the offense contemplated in P.D. No. 9. The information in these cases under consideration suffer from this defect.

xxx xxx xxx

And while there is no proof of it before the Court, it is not difficult to believe the murmurings of detained persons brought to Court upon a charge of possession of bladed weapons under P.D. No. 9, that more than ever before, policemen - of course not all can be so heartless — now have in their hands P.D. No. 9 as a most convenient tool for extortion, what with the terrifying risk of being sentenced to imprisonment of five to ten years for a rusted kitchen knife or a pair of scissors, which only God knows where it came from. Whereas before martial law an extortion-minded peace officer had to have a stock of the cheapest paltik, and even that could only convey the coercive message of one year in jail, now anything that has the semblance of a sharp edge or pointed object, available even in trash cans, may already serve the same purpose, and yet five to ten times more incriminating than the infamous paltik.

For sure, P.D. No. 9 was conceived with the best of intentions and wisely applied, its necessity can never be assailed. But it seems it is back-firing, because it is too hot in the hands of policemen who are inclined to backsliding.

The checkvalves against abuse of P.D. No. 9 are to be found in the heart of the Fiscal and the conscience of the Court, and hence this resolution, let alone technical legal basis, is prompted by the desire of this Court to apply said checkvalves. (pp. 55-57, rollo of L-42050-66)

It is the second element which removes the act of carrying a deadly weapon, if concealed, outside of 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 so warrant.

Respondent Judges correctly ruled that this can be the only reasonably, logical, and valid construction given to P.D. 9(3).

Reasonable construction

And as respondent Judge Maceren points out, the people's interpretation of P.D. 9(3) results in absurdity at times. To his example We may add a situation where a law-abiding citizen, a lawyer by profession, after gardening in his house remembers to return the bolo used by him to his neighbor who lives about 30 meters or so away and while crossing the street meets a policeman. The latter upon seeing the bolo being carried by that citizen places him under arrest and books him for a violation of P.D. 9(3). Could the presidential decree have been conceived to produce such absurd, unreasonable, and insensible results? (People v. Purisima, supra)

**_Cathy_** · February 27th, 2016 06:23 PM

b_9904 please quote your posts. Thanks.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 06:23 PM

So my dear survivalists friends:

1) PD 9 as amended by BP 6 applies only to political crimes. The mere carrying of a knife, or any other non-firearm related "weapon", is not punishable under PD9.

2) Ordinances that punishes you for the MERE carrying of these "deadly weapons" may be challenged using the same logic applied by Hon. Purisima and Hon. Maceren.

3) There is really no LENGTH LIMIT with concealed knives. The "4 inch blade rule" has no basis in law.

4) Be more careful in concealing your knives. I mean seriously. If guards or cops find your knife then you aren't very good in concealing it.

5) With that the phrase "DO NOT GET CAUGHT" still applies. Even if you are successful in avoiding prosecution, the fact that you got caught will produce needless stress, the degree of which can only be compared to a near death experience.

Caveat:

Comelec Gun ban

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 06:31 PM

The Comelec Gun ban

(read full text here)

WHEREAS, Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) provides:

"Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. - Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearm/s, carries any firearm/s outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof.

This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or valuables."

WHEREAS, Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166 provides:

"Sec. 32. Who May Bear Firearms. - During the election period, no person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places, including any building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, unless authorized in writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearms license shall be suspended during the election period.

Only regular members of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other law enforcement agencies of the Government who are duly deputized in writing by the Commission for election duty may be authorized to carry and possess firearms during the election period: Provided, That, when in the possession of firearms, the deputized law enforcement officer must be: (a) in full uniform showing clearly and legibly his name, rank and serial number, which shall remain visible at all times, and (b) in the actual performance of his election duty in the specific area designated by the Commission."

WHEREAS, Section 33 of the same Act provides:

"Sec. 33. Security Personnel and Bodyguards. - During the election period, no candidate for public office, including incumbent public officers seeking election to any public offices, shall employ, avail himself of or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguards, whether or not such bodyguards are regular members of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines or other law enforcement agency of the Government: Provided, That when circumstances warrant, including but not limited to threats to life and security of a candidate, he may be assigned by the Commission, upon due application, regular members of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines or other law enforcement agency who shall provide him security for the duration of the election period. The officers assigned for security duty to a candidate shall be subject to the same requirement as to wearing of uniforms prescribed in the immediately preceding section unless exempted in writing by the Commission.

"If at any time during the election period, the ground for which the authority to engage the services of security personnel has been granted shall cease to exist or for any other valid cause, the Commission shall revoke the said authority."

That is part of the "where as clause" of the Comelec gun ban resolution.

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 06:35 PM

Notice anything funny?

YUP. Knives and non-firearms related "weapons" may or may not be included in the law, considering that "deadly weapons" is in the same paragraph as "Who May Bear Firearms." and that the mere possession thereof is in violation of the law.

Notice the similarity with the PD9 rulings?

Yup. A guy buying a knife for house use, then transporting it from the store to his house, on public streets, and clearly outside of his residence is violating this provision.

Can you use the logic of Hon. Purisima, et al.? Of course, but it does not mean you would avoid prosecution that is an entirely different discussion al together.

**b_9904** · February 27th, 2016 06:38 PM

Rejoice however for the same resolution states this

Deadly Weapon includes all types of bladed instruments, hand grenades or other explosives, except pyrotechnics. Provided, that a bladed instrument is not covered by the prohibition when possession of the bladed instrument is necessary to the occupation of the possessor or when it is used as a tool for a legitimate activity.

So... you may argue that part.

**safeorigin** · February 28th, 2016 11:33 AM

hmmm... not sure what goes through the minds of policy makers being so iffy with knives.

not long ago, it was considered ungentleman not to carry one...

besides, there's a clear distinction between a fighting knife and a utility knife.

the former must have a quillon(cross guard) and the latter is an afterthought(often in the form of a partial guard or finger choil)...

**b_9904** · February 28th, 2016 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by safeorigin

hmmm... not sure what goes through the minds of policy makers being so iffy with knives.

not long ago, it was considered ungentleman not to carry one...

besides, there's a clear distinction between a fighting knife and a utility knife.

the former must have a quillon(cross guard) and the latter is an afterthought(often in the form of a partial guard or finger choil)...

Because of the regressive thinking that banning weapons will keep us safer.