Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Paraaque City
Branch 101

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
- Versus -

CRIM. CASE NO. 13-0524

FOR: VIOLATION OF P.D.
9 as amended by B.P. 6

JOHN LLOYD CRUS

Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x.

DECISION
On April 19, 2013, an Information for violation of Presidential Decree
No. 9 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 6, was filed against accused
JOHN LLOYD CRUS (CRUS), the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 14th day of April 2013, in the
City of Paraaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously carry
outside of his residence a knife measuring 15 inches long,
not for the purpose of using it as a necessary tool or
implement to earn his livelihood and his act of carrying
the same was either in connection with lawless violence,
criminality or chaos or public disorder.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged in
the Information. At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the
accused as the same person charged in the Information, and the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.2

1 Record, p.1
2 Record, p. 43

Thereafter, the trial of the case ensued.

The Facts
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely, Joel Aquino
and Perry Justiniani, both Barangay Tanod of Brgy. San Dionisio,
Paraaque City, and SPO1 Israel L. Perez, the police investigator on-duty.
The prosecutions evidence shows that at around 10:00 oclock in the
evening of April 14, 2013, Shella Ramirez (Shella), accuseds sister, went
to the barangay hall of Brgy. San Dionisio Paraaque City to seek
assistance regarding his brother (the accused) who is running amok
(nagwawala). Barangay Tanod (B/T) Joel Aquino (Aquino) and B/T Perry
Justiniani (Justiniani), who were then on-duty responded and proceeded to
Shellas house in Tramo St,. Brgy. San Dionisio. Upon arriving at the house
in Tramo St., B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani saw the accused running amok
(nagwawala) and having in his possession a knife and a steel pipe. They
heard the accused curse and threaten Shella, saying Putang ina mo, wag
kang magpapakita sa akin, papatayin kita. They eventually nabbed the
accused and recovered from him a knife and steel pipe which they turnedover to the police investigator. SPO1 Raffy Perez (Perez), the on-duty
police investigator, placed markings on the knife and steel pipe using the
initials of the accused, and took pictures thereof. 3
The defense, for its part, presented the accused as its sole witness.
Accused interposed denial as a defense. He testified that on the
night of April 14, 2013, he had a squabble with his sister, Shella, regarding
their dinner. He, thereafter, went to sleep and when he awoke, he was
already in handcuffs and was forcibly taken and brought to the barangay
hall. He was thereafter detained at the barangay detention cell, where he
slept for the night. In the morning, B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani
accompanied him to the Paraaque Community Hospital for a medical
check-up. Then, he was brought to Presinto Syete (Police Station) for
investigation. From there, he was brought to SID for detention. 4
Accused denied having in possession of the knife. He just saw the knife at
the police station when it was presented by B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani
during the investigation in the morning of April 15, 2013. He did not know
3 TSNs dated June 13, 2013 and July 25,2013.
4 TSN dated August 8,2013

why B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani arrested him nor did they gave any
explanation why they arrested him.5
The Courts Ruling
Section 3 of P.D. No. 9 as amended by B.P. Blg. 6 reads as follows:
Section 3. It is unlawful to carry outside of ones 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.

The elements of the offense penalized by P.D. No. 9, as amended by

B.P. Blg. 6, are:
1. Carrying outside of ones residence any bladed, pointed or blunt
weapon, and
2. that the carrying of said weapon outside of residence is not for the
purpose of using it as a necessary tool or implement to earn a
livelihood or in pursuit of a lawful activity.
The foregoing elements are all present in this case. Per testimony of
prosecutions witnesses, B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani, accused was
positively identified in possession of the knife outside of his residence.
There is no showing that his act in carrying the said knife was for the
purpose of using it as a necessary tool or implement to earn his livelihood.
In fact, as the evidence of the prosecution shows, he carried the said knife
to threaten his sister Shella.
Accuseds defense of denial fails in light of the positive identification
made by B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani.
Jurisprudence holds that denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and
crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who
testified on affirmative matters. To merit credibility, it must be buttressed by
strong evidence of non-culpability. Also, being a negative defense, denial
must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, it
5 ibid.

would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value
that the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters.
As between categorical testimonies that ring of truth on one hand and
a bare denial on the other, the Supreme Court has consistently held that
the former must prevail. Indeed, positive identification of the appellant,
when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of
the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi and denial. 6
B/T Aquino and B/T Justiniani have in their favor the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty. When B/T Aquino and B/T
Justiniani arrested the accused, they were merely responding to a call for
assistance from the accuseds sister, who was then being threatened by
the accused himself.
A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made
in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the
performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record
suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of
official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the
presumption cannot arise.7 While the presumption of innocence is the
highest in the hierarchy of presumptions, it remains a rebuttable
presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence can be
overcome by the presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied
by strong evidence supporting the guilt of the accused. 8
Here, no ill motive or ill will could be ascribed against B/T Aquino and
B/T Justiniani in arresting the accused. Accuseds pretense that he did not
know why they arrested him is simply flimsy, considering that no quarrel or
any altercation between him and the barangay enforcers preceded his
arrest. Neither did accused furnished any reason why the barangay
enforcers would implicate him or trump-up a charge against him.
Accordingly, the presumption of regularity in the arrest of the accused
by the barangay enforcers prevails over the accused pretended innocence.
6 In People of the Philippines vs. Joseph dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008;
7 People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 156.
8 People of the Philippines vs. Arielito Alivio y Oliveros and Ernesto Dela Vega y Cabbarobias , G.R. No.
177771, May 30, 2011

In fine, this Court finds the guilt of the accused for the crime charged
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the
accused, JOHN LLOYD CRUS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF BLADED, POINTED OR BLUNT
WEAPON, as defined and penalized in Presidential Decree No. 9 as
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 6, and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS imprisonment.
Considering that the accused has been under detention for a period
of more than THREE (3) MONTHS, the jail warden of the BJMP is hereby
directed to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the accused from custody unless
there are other lawful causes or reasons for his further detention.
SO ORDERED.
Given in Chamber this 30th day of August 2013, at Paraaque City.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
Presiding Judge