RODOLFO BERMUDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Rodolfo Bermudez was accused of having violated paragraph 3 of
P.D. No. 9, in an information
alleging:

“That on or about 10:30 A.M. on the 28th day of December 1975,
at Barangay Macarcarmay,
Municipality of Bangued, Province of Abra, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess, carry and
have in his custody outside of his residence one (1) sharp pointed bolo measuring
9 3/4 inches long including handle which is violative
of said Presidential Decree.”

Convicting said accused
as charged, the lower court sentenced him to suffer an imprisonment “of
from FIVE (5) to TEN (10) YEARS, with costs de oficio,”
and ordered the bolo confiscated in favor of the government.

From this decision, the petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals.

In the brief filed by
petitioner herein before the Court of Appeals (therein defendant-appellant),
the following statement of facts was made:

“In the morning of December
28, 1975 during the town fiesta the accused-appellant in group of
five namely Cornelio Buenafe, Jorge Tuzon and one were in their way to the basketball court,
when suddenly the accused saw a bolo in a
sheath.  The bolo
look similar to the bolo of Jorge Tuzon so he
picked and kept it and placed on his waistline. 
When he saw Jorge Tuzon, he draw the bolo with
intention to show it to him and inquiring whether it belongs to him but he
answered no, so he intended to surrender the same to the barrio captain but at
that precise moment Paulino Acena
grabbed and got hold of the bolo and ran away x x x.”

On the other hand, therein plaintiff-appellee
(respondent herein) made a counterstatement of facts, which follows:

“On December 28,
1975, barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued, Abra was celebrating its
barrio fiesta.  At about 10:30 a.m. on the same day, appellant Rodolfo
Bermudez was in the company of Cornelio Buenafe and
three (3) other persons near the vicinity of the church in the said
barrio.  The appellant was then making
trouble and challenging all the people.

“Suddenly, Paulino Acena, who was also in the said vicinity in his capacity as
member of the officials of the Barrio Home Defense Unit saw the appellant
drawing a bolo and in the act of injuring Jorge Tuzon.  So he immediately rushed at the appellant and
grabbed the latter’s bolo.  When the
police authorities arrived about four (4) hours later, he turned over to them
the said bolo.”

Substantially adopting the foregoing counter-statement of facts
by therein plaintiff-appellee, respondent Court of
Appeals rendered a decision affirming with modification the decision of the
lower court.  The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads as follows:

“x x x In
view of the equities of the case and in the exercise of judicial discretion
consonant with the principle that imposition of the absolute minimum penalty
prescribed by a special law is
not a contravention of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (People vs. Nang Kay, 88
Phil. 515) the judgment of the trial court is hereby modified to the end that
the appellant be, as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of
five (5) years imprisonment.”

The petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied.

Hence, the present
petition for review on certiorari.

Presented for Our consideration are two issues, the discussion of
the first of which would suffice for Us to grant the petitioner’s plea.

The first issue raised by
the petitioner is whether or not conviction for violation of Presidential
Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, requires that the carrying of the prohibited weapons
be connected with the crimes of rebellion, subversion, insurrection, lawless
violence, chaos, or disorder.

Even a cursory perusal of
Presidential Decree No. 9 would reveal that said decree was handed down by the President for some
very definitive purposes — which We quote hereunder
for ready reference:

“WHEREAS, pursuant
to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September
21, 1972, the Philippines
has been placed under a gate 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, criminality, 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:

xx                  xx                     xx                     xx

“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 used 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.”

The foregoing stated
purposes of Presidential Decree No. 9 leave no room for doubt that indeed said
Decree is one of those issued by the President 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 P.D. No. 9 is primarily linked with
the political purposes for which Proclamation No. 1081 was proclaimed.

The recent case of Abril vs. People (L-46265, Feb. 28, 1978) would serve to
enlighten us in this respect.  This Court
stated thus:

“It can safely be stated here that P.D. 9 was issued by His Excellency,
the President of the Republic of the Philippines
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 Presidential Decree 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 9 was based on Proclamation No. 1081.”

In this light, an element
surfaces as essential for conviction under PD No. 9 (“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 used in connection therewith, 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.”) — 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.

In this case, the record
reveals that when state witness Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo from the accused Rodolfo Bermudez on
the morning of December 28, 1975 during the barrio fiesta, said accused was
not, in any way, involved in any unlawful act of criminality, and more so, in
any act of rebellion, subversion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality
and public disorder.  The accused was
merely in the act of showing the bolo to Jorge Tuzon
(or Rodolfo Tuazon) since the former thought it to be
the same bolo owned by the latter. 
Government witness Paulino Acena
was ignorant of these events, which is apparent from his own testimony, to wit:

“Q
–   On December 28, 1975 do you recall if there was a celebration
in Barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued,
Abra?

“A
–    Yes, there was, sir.

“Q
–   What was that celebration on December 28, 1975?

“A
–    It was a barrio fiesta, sir.

“Q
–   During that celebration of the barrio
at about 10:30 in the morning do you
recall if you have seen one Rodolfo Bermudez?

“A
–    Yes, sir.

“Q
–   Where did you see him?

“A –    Near the vicinity
of the chappel, sir.

“Q
–   What transpired in that place when you
saw Rodolfo Bermudez near the vicinity of the chapel?

“A
–    I saw Rodolfo Bermudez drawing a
knife in front of one person by the name of Rodolfo Tuazon.

“Q
–   What did you do as a member of the
Home Defense that when you see Rodolfo Bermudez drawing a bolo to Mr. Rodolfo Tuazon?

“A
–    Upon my sight I immediately pro­ceeded
to him and get the bolo, sir.

“COURT

“Q
–   What did you apprehend?

“A –    The knife from
Rodolfo Bermudez, your Honor.

“FISCAL
PAREDES

“Q
–   At the very moment you confiscated the
bolo what was Rodolfo Bermudez doing with the bolo?

“ATTY. GENEROSA

“It
was already answered.

“FISCAL
PAREDES

“We
are asking the moment he grabbed the bolo, your Honor.

“COURT

“Answer
the question.

“WITNESS

“A
–   When I approached the knife was
half-drawn from the scabbard, sir.

“ATTY.
PAREDES

“Were
you able to get that bolo?

“A
–   Yes, sir.

“Q
–   At the time you saw the accused in
possession of that bolo how many meters?

“A –   About 25 yards,
sir.

“Q
–   On that date, time and day I
presumed there were plenty of people in your barrio?

“A
–   Yes, sir.

“Q
–   As a matter of fact these people
were near the vicinity where the accused was allegedly see
him have the bolo?

“A
–   They were many of them saw (sic),
sir.

“Q
–   And the 5 persons were also there
near the vicinity?

“A
–   They were, sir.

“Q
–   When you first saw the accused with
the bolo he was already holding the same in his hands?

“A –   No, sir.

“Q
–   How then were you able to see the bolo in the possession of the
accused?

“A
–   I only see the bolo when he was
drawing the bolo to Rodolfo Tuazon, sir.

“Q
–   Removing the bolo in his scabbard?

“A
–   Yes, sir.

“Q
–   One hand the scabbard and the other
hand holding the bolo?

“A
–   Yes, sir.

“Q
–   He was showing the bolo to Rodolfo Tuazon?

“A
–   That is what I do not know, sir.

“Q –   When
you saw the accused doing that thing to the bolo you immediately apprehend him and
get hold of the bolo?

“A –   Yes,
sir.

“Q –   You
see that from a distance of 25 yards?

“A –   Yes,
sir.

“Q –   And
when you grabbed the bolo from him as your son-in-law he voluntarily gave the
bolo to you?

“A –   Yes, sir” (pp. 14-16, rec.; underlining supplied).

The foregoing testimony
belies the finding of the respondent Court that before Acena
rushed at the accused, the former suddenly saw the
latter in the act of drawing a bolo and injuring Jorge Tuzon.  In his testimony, Acena
denied knowledge of the accused’s intention in
drawing the bolo from its scabbard.  He
did not know whether the accused was merely showing the bolo to Tuzon (or Tuazon).  He just saw from a distance of 25 yards the
accused drawing the bolo in front of Tuzon (or Tuazon).  If the accused
wanted to assault Tuzon (or Tuazon),
he could have done so before Acena could reach him
from 25 yards away.  The accused’s statement, therefore, that he picked up the bolo
to show it to Rodolfo (or Jorge) Tuzon is more
tenable, corroborated as it is by the testimony of Jorge Tuzon
(or Rodolfo Tuazon) who declared that the accused
merely asked him whether the bolo found by the accused belongs to him (Tuzon or Tuazon) [t.s.n., pp. 63-64, hearing of June 28, 1976].

Hence, accused’s testimony that he found the bolo as the middle of
the barrio road at about 10:30 in the morning of December
28, 1975, becomes
credible.

In his affidavit taken an
December 29, 1975 by policeman Catalino Buenafe of Bangued, Abra, principal state witness Paulino
Acena y Bautista stated that he is a retired PC
soldier residing at Barangay Macarcarmay, Bangued, Abra; that about 11:30 in the morning of December
28, 1975, while the barrio people were in the barrio church, he saw the accused
Rodolfo Bermudez (husband of his daughter) holding a bolo facing somebody else;
that he went near them and confiscated the bolo from his son-in-law, the
accused therein, whom he pulled away from the crowd and advised to keep quiet;
that when the accused did not heed his advice, he let him go; that he did not
return the bolo because as a retired soldier, he knows that the accused has
violated the law; that because he did not return the bolo to the accused, the
latter threatened him by saying “there will be a time for you” and
thereafter went away; that soon after Patrolman Eduardo Bringas
arrived; that he handed to Patrolman Bringas the bolo
he confiscated from the accused; that Nicanor Valera and many other persons were present when the
incident happened; that Cornelio Buenafe was the
companion of the accused who was creating trouble and challenging all the
people who panicked; that the bolo he confiscated from the accused was
sharp-pointed about 9-3/4 inches long, including its handle and wooden
scabbard; that he did not know the person whom the accused was “charging
on” when he was holding the bolo; that the accused was then facing Rudy Tuzon (referring to George Tuzon)
and many others whom he can no longer remember; and that nobody was wounded
during the incident (Exh. C, Translation, p. 2,
rec.).

In his testimony in court, state witness Paulino
Acena declared at the hearing on June 21, 1976 that
he is a member of the Civilian Home Defense Unit of the barrio and a retired PC
soldier; that on December 28, 1975, they were celebrating the fiesta of Barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued, Abra; that at about 10:30 in the morning of said date,
December 28, 1975, he saw about 25 yards away the accused Rodolfo Bermudez
about two meters from the barrio chapel drawing a knife in front of Rodolfo Tuzon (obviously referring to George Tuzon,
nicknamed Rudy) in the company of five other persons including Cornelio Buenafe; that he immediately proceeded to the accused from
whom he confiscated the bolo; that when he approached the accused the bolo was
already half-drawn from its scabbard (Exhibits A & A-1); that he does not
know why the accused drew the bolo half-way; that after seizing the bolo from
the accused, he counseled him after which the police force arrived; that he
gave the bolo to policeman Felipe Bello; that the
accused is from Tayum, Abra
and resides about 500 yards from the chapel of Barrio Macarcarmay,
Bangued, Abra; that he does
not know that the accused herein, his son-in-law, is a friend of Rodolfo Tuzon (referring to George Tuzon);
that there were many people in the vicinity of the incident; that he did not
know whether the accused then was showing the bolo to him; that he did not
inquire as to who owned the bolo, but that after the crowd dispersed, he asked
the accused who answered that the bolo is his; that Cornelio Buenafe was still with the accused after he confiscated the
bolo from the latter, but Cornelio Buenafe also left
when the crowd dispersed, although Cornelio Buenafe
accompanied the accused to his (Acena’s) house to
talk with him about the incident; that after getting the bolo from the accused,
he immediately left the area because the accused and his companions were
challenging him to a fight; that only the accused followed him to his house to
get the bolo from him to be used in killing a pig; that after two hours the
accused went to his (Acena’s) house asking for the
bolo; that he told the accused that he will keep the bolo until everything is
over; that he kept the bolo for about three hours inside his dresser until the
arrival of the police force to whom he surrendered the bolo; that the
companions of the accused challenged him to a fight because he refused to
return the bolo; and that Tuzon did not run away
although he did not see him in the place of the incident after he got the bolo
from the accused.

When he was recalled to the witness stand, state witness Acena further stated that as a member of the Civilian Home
Defense Force and as a citizen, he was authorized to arrest any person who
commits a crime in his presence; and that he reported the incident to the
barrio captain and the PC Commander, but he did not state whether he
investigated the incident or the circumstances giving rise thereto.

Policeman Felipe Bello testified that
he was at the municipal building of Bangued, Abra when a certain Mrs. Brilliantes,
the head teacher of Macarcarmay Elementary School,
reported to him the trouble that took place in barrio Macarcarmay
in the morning of December 28, 1975; that together with patrolmen Eduardo Bringas and Manuel Marilag, he
proceeded on a jeep to and reached said barrio about 12 o’clock noon; that he
went to the house of Paulino Acena
who surrendered the bolo to him telling him that he (Acena)
confiscated the bolo from the accused Rodolfo Bermudez; that he issued to Acena a receipt for the bolo; that upon his query, Acena told him that he did not know where the accused had
run away; and that they looked vainly for the accused in the vicinity of the
incident.

In his defense, the accused presented his testimony and those of
Romeo Buenafe, Jorge Tuzon,
and Cornelio Buenafe.

The accused Rodolfo Bermudez testified on July 16, 1976 that he
was 24 years old (now 26), married and a farmer and resident of Barrio Velasco,
Tayug, Abra; that in the
morning of December 28, 1975, he was walking on the road going towards the
basketball court of barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued, Abra, together with
Cornelio Buenafe, Rodolfo Buenafe
and two others; that he went to the house of Cornelio Buenafe
before proceeding to the basketball court; that on the way, he saw a bolo which
he picked up, despite the advice of Cornelio Buenafe
not to pick it up as it might work against him later on; that he picked up the
bolo because it appeared similar to the bolo of Jorge (or George) Tuzon, one of his defense witnesses and his good friend;
that he saw Jorge Tuzon near the church that morning;
that he placed the bolo on his waistline; that when he saw Jorge Tuzon at the basketball court he showed the bolo to him and
asked him whether it was his and Jorge Tuzon replied
that it was not his, he told Tuzon that he had to
surrender the same or to any member of the barrio council; that the basketball
court is about 80 to 100 meters from where he first saw him (Jorge) near the
church; that when he showed the bolo to Tuzon,
Cornelio and Rodolfo Buenafe were with him; that
after he showed the bolo to Tuzon, he was about to
deliver the bolo to Romeo Buenafe, barrio councilman
of Barrio Macarcarmay who was approaching them when
his father-in-law Paulino Acena,
state witness, came from behind him and took the bolo from him; that after Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo
from him, Jorge Tuzon and some people nearby ran away
leaving only Cornelio Buenafe with them; that after
grabbing the bolo from him Paulino Acena pointed a gun at him asking him who owns the bolo,
adding “shet“; that thereafter Paulino Acena left together with
his wife (the accused’s mother-in-law); that after Paulino Acena left, barrio
councilman Romeo Buenafe asked him why Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo in
his (Romeo Buenafe’s) presence; that councilman Romeo
Buenafe told him that they will get the bolo to
butcher chickens and a pig and that he will deliver the bolo to him (the
accused) for him to turn over the same to the barrio captain; that thereafter
he and Cornelio Buenafe proceeded to the house of Paulino Acena to get the bolo;
that when they tried to get the bolo from Paulino Acena, an altercation ensued between Paulino
Acena and Cornelio Buenafe
in the yard of Paulino Acena
fronting the road; that during the altercation between Paulino
Acena and Cornelio Buena­fe
there were plenty of people passing along the road because it was then a barrio
fiesta; that the passers­-by stopped and listened to the verbal exchange
between Paulino Acena and
Cornelio Buenafe and ran away when Paulino Acena tried to rush at
him and Cornelio Buenafe; that his wife Aurelia Acena is the daughter of Paulino Acena; that during the altercation between Paulino Acena and Cornelio Buenafe, he just listened and did not utter any word
because he did not have the temerity to answer his father-in-law Paulino Acena; that when Paulino Acena got the bolo from
him while in front of the barrio chapel, he did not make any protest because he
considered Paulino Acena as
his own father; that he was not even able to tell Paulino
Acena that he was surrendering the bolo to barrio
councilman Romeo Buena­fe because Paulino
Acena just grabbed the bolo from him; that the place
where he picked up the bolo was about 30 to 35 meters from the place where he
showed the bolo to Jorge Tuzon; that they went direct
to him from the place where he picked up the bolo; that he was wearing a shirt
then as he was going to play basketball; that Paulino
Acena smelt of liquor when he (Acena)
grabbed the bolo from him; that Paulino Acena filed the complaint of illegal possession of deadly
weapon and the charge of public scandal against him because Paulino
Acena did not like him to marry his daughter,
possibly because of his poverty; that he paid a fine for public scandal because
he wanted the case to be terminated as he was ashamed of a case existing
between him and his father-in-law; that he was not able to tell his
father-in-law that he just picked up the bolo because his father-in-law
appeared suddenly and took the bolo away from him and soon after his mother-in-law
took him (Acena) away and brought him to their house;
that thereafter he was not able to tell his father-in-law that he just picked
up the bolo on the road because he was afraid to go to their house as he was
informed that his father-in-law would kill him; that he was never investigated
by the authorities because of the incident; that he learned of this case only
when he was arrested on February 27, 1976; that the bolo Exhibit “A”
together with its scabbard, Exhibit “A-1”, is not the same as the
bolo he picked up because the bolo he picked up was smaller than Exhibit
“A” and that the scabbard is made of leather unlike Exhibit
“A-1” which is made of wood; that he did not have any intention to
own the bolo which he picked up; that he was the only one who picked up the
bolo despite the many people walking along the same road where he found it;
that he tucked the bolo in his waistline but still visible; that he did not
have any intention to stab Jorge Tuzon with the bolo;
that when he brought out the bolo the people near Jorge Tuzon
did not run; that he was not able to tell his father-in-law Paulino
Acena that he picked up the bolo after Acena grabbed it from him because Acena
pointed a gun at him — a .22 caliber magnum; that he reported the fact that Paulino Acena pointed a gun at
him to the persons in the cadre who told him to settle the case between
themselves since Paulino Acena
is his father-in-law and they belong to the same family and that when the case
will not be settled be­tween him and his father-in-law, they advised him to return to the cadre so
that they will help him settle the case; that his statement was taken down in
writing; that he has no copy of his statement or report; that he did not insist
in filing a case against his father-in-law Paulino Acena because he considers him as his own father, being the
father of his wife; that while the other persons in the vicinity may not have
seen his father-in-law pointing a gun at him because they ran away after Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo
from him, Cornelio Buenafe did see; that three days
after the incident, he told barrio captain Emilio Bigornia
that he just picked up the bolo which was grabbed by Paulino
Acena, when he and barrio captain Bigornia
talked by chance near their place because the barrio captain learned of the
incident but he did not purposely go to the barrio captain to report the matter
to him; that he and Cornelio Buenafe were sent to the
house of Paulino Acena to
get the bolo from him because it will be used in butchering a pig, not of their
own volition but because Romeo Buenafe sent them for
said purpose; that the altercation between Paulino Acena and Cornelio Buenafe was
due to the fact that Paulino Acena
uttered many words which provoked Cornelio Buenafe to
answer back; that when he was showing the bolo to Jorge Tuzon
before Paulino Acena
grabbed it from him councilman Romeo Buenafe was
about six meters away; that the barrio captain did not like to accompany him to
his father-in-law to tell him that he just picked up the bolo; that people told
him that his father-in-law will kill him if he goes to him; and that his own
wife told him that his father-in-law did not like any person to be presented to
him.

Defense witness Cornelio Buenafe
testified on August 2, 1976 that he was then 28 years old, single, laborer and
resident of barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued,
Abra; that in the morning of December 28, 1975, his
four friends including the accused Rodolfo Bermudez fetched him from his house
and they proceeded to the basketball court to play basketball near the barrio
school; that on the way to the basketball court they saw a bolo on the road
which the accused picked up, in spite of his warning not to do so because the
bolo might work against him; that the accused replied that the bolo appeared to
be similar to the bolo of Jorge Tuzon; that as they
continued walking towards the basketball court, the accused was looking for
Jorge Tuzon who was about five meters away and whom
he believed to be the owner of the bolo, when Paulino
Acena grabbed the bolo from the accused while they
were about 75 meters from the chapel with only a few persons near them; that
when Paulino Acena grabbed
the bolo from the accused causing the people around to scamper, Jorge Tuzon said that it was not his bolo; that councilman Buenafe told the accused to get the bolo and surrender it
to him; that the place where the accused picked up the bolo is about 150 to 170
meters from the place near the church where Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo from the accused; that soon after Paulino Acena grabbed the bolo
from the accused, the wife of Paulino Acena took him home; that obeying the orders of barrio
councilman Romeo Buenafe, he and Rodolfo Bermudez
went to the house of Paulino Acena
to get the bolo to be used in butchering a pig; that there were many people
passing by when he was trying to get the bolo from Paulino
Acena; that the passers-by gathered around and
listened to the exchange of words between him and Paulino
Acena; that, thinking that they were quarreling, the
passers-by ran away; that the accused Rodolfo Bermudez left when he (Buena­fe) was trying to get the bolo from Paulino Acena; that he also left
after the passers-by ran away; that the bolo marked Exhibit “A” is
not the bolo which was picked up by the accused because the bolo the accused
picked up was shorter and had a leather scabbard; that the barrio road was
about three meters wide; that the accused showed the bolo to the people in the
vicinity to find out who owns it;
that when Paulino Acena
from behind, grabbed the bolo from the accused, a scandal was created by him
and the accused, to which charge they both pleaded guilty and paid a fine
because they did not like any trouble; that the scandal might have occured at the time he and the accused went to the house of
Acena to get the bolo upon instruction of barrio
councilman Romeo Buenafe which gave rise to an
altercation between him and Paulino Acena; that the altercation was due to the fact that Paulino Acena did not like to
give the bolo which they wanted to use for butchering a pig; that during the
latter part of his altercation with Paulino Acena, the accused left; that after butchering the pig with
the bolo they would surrender the bolo to barrio councilman Romeo Buenafe, who told them to surrender the same to him after
butchering a pig; that at the
time the accused picked up the bolo lying on the road, he said that the bolo is similar to the bolo of Jorge Tuzon, after he advised the accused not to pick it up or it
might later involve him; that when they saw Jorge Tuzon
two meters away, barrio councilman Romeo Buenafe was
about five meters from them; and that he was about three meters behind the
accused and Jorge Tuzon when the accused showed the
bolo to Tuzon.

Defense witness Romeo Buenafe declared
that he was 32 years old (on June 28, 1976), married, farmer, barrio councilman
of barrio Macarcarmay, and member of Civilian Home
Defense Force (CHDF) and resident of said barrio; that about 10:35 in the
morning of December 28, 1975, he was near the barrio church with his companions
waiting for the mass to start; that the accused Rodolfo Bermudez showed a bolo to Jorge Tuzon;
that being a barrio councilman, he thought it was his duty to take the bolo but
that was the time when Paulino Acena,
the father-in-law of the accused arrived; that he was informed that the accused
found a bolo on the barrio road; that the accused was about to give him the
bolo when Paulino Acena
grabbed it; that the accused had five other companions; that the accused obeyed
him when he told him to go with his father-in-law; that he was not able to do
anything because the bolo was already taken by Paulino
Acena but he was able to tell the accused why his
father-in-law did that to him; that the accused and his father-in-law are not
in good terms because his father-in-law does not like the accused; that the
accused is not notorious and has been conducting himself properly; that it was
only in the morning of the trial that day when the accused requested him to
testify in his defense; that the wife of the accused is his niece by a second
degree cousin; that the head teacher of the barrio elementary school reported
to the municipal building the trouble of a commotion caused by the possession
of the bolo; that the accused and Cornelio Buenafe
did not create the trouble; that he does not know that the accused and Cornelio
Buenafe were charged with public scandal in the
municipal court; that the accused took the bolo from his waist because he was
looking for its owner; that he came to testify to tell the truth; that the
people thought that there was trouble when the accused showed the bolo to Jorge
Tuzon although actually there was no trouble; that he
is not sure whether Exhibits “A” and “A-1” are the same
bolo and its scabbard; that he had no chance to hold the bolo; that he was
about five meters from the accused when the latter drew the bolo from his
waist; and that he wanted to approach the accused because he was looking for
the owner of the bolo but that before he could reach him, the father-in-law of
the accused grabbed the bolo from behind.

Jorge (George) Tuzon testified that he is 23 years old (on June 28, 1976),
married, farmer and resident of barrio Macarcarmay, Bangued, Abra; that he knows the
accused when he married the daughter of Paulino Acena, a resident of the barrio, and thereafter they became
friends; that about 10 o’clock in the morning of December 28, 1975, he was
sitting near the chapel with his “barkada”
and listening to barrio councilman Romeo
Buenafe conversing with other people; that there were many persons then because it was a
barrio fiesta; that the accused, with Cornelio Buenafe
and other friends, came to their place asking who was the owner of the
bolo which he drew from his waist; that when the accused told them that he was
going to surrender the bolo to the barrio councilman, his father-in-law Paulino Acena from behind grabbed
the bolo from him; that after grabbing the bolo Paulino
Acena left; that he does not know of any quarrel
between the accused and his father-in-law then; that when Paulino
Acena grabbed the bolo from the accused, he and the
others ran away because they were afraid; that he does not know whether there
was any trouble created by the accused and Cornelio Buenafe
because he was no longer in the vicinity after Acena
seized the bolo from the accused; that Exhibits “A” and
“A-1” are not similar to the bolo and the scabbard grabbed by Acena from the accused because the scabbard found by the
accused was made of leather; that he was about one meter from the accused when
the latter showed him the bolo and asked him whether the bolo was his; that he
was there to tell the story he had just related; that when he told the accused
that it was not his bolo, the accused said that they will have to surrender the
same to the authorities.

On rebuttal, state witness Paulino Acena denied that he pointed a gun at the accused after
grabbing the bolo from him; reiterated his identification of Exhibits “A” and “A-1”
as the bolo and scabbard that he grabbed from the accused; stated that he thought
he saw Cornelio Buenafe when he grabbed the bolo from
the accused; denied that the accused and Cornelio Buenafe
went to his house to get the bolo to be used in butchering a pig nor was there
an altercation between him and Cornelio Buenafe; that
he had a magnum gun which he carried with him during the fiesta to maintain
peace and order; that he kept the bolo he seized from the accused in his house
until the arrival of the police to whom he surrendered the same that very day;
that he kept the bolo in the drawer of his dresser; that after he seized the
bolo from the accused, the latter went to his house to get the bolo; and that
he advised the accused as a son that he should not get the bolo.

Under the established
facts, We cannot conclude that
petitioner was engaged in subversion, insurrection, rebellion,
criminality, public disorder, or lawless violence.  His plea of guilty to the charge of public
scandal for which he was accordingly sentenced to pay a fine, does not necessarily
give rise to the inference that he was then a participant in subversive
activities, or lawless violence or criminality or public disorder.  A rebel, dissident, or criminal would not
carry openly such a deadly weapon in front of many people in broad daylight
(about 10:30 in the morning) during a barrio
fiesta near the barrio chapel beside which a program for children had just
ended.  If the bolo were his (as
intimated by witness Nicanor Valera,
pp. 3-4, 7, rec.), petitioner
could be carrying it as his usual farm or household tool or implement.  If it was not his, then his story that he
found the bolo and that he was showing it to his companion Jorge Tuzon (or Rodolfo Tuazon) when
his father-in-law Paulino Acena
saw him and grabbed it from him thinking that petitioner was about to injure
Jorge Tuzon (or Rodolfo Tuazon)
with it, appears credible.

Likewise, the testimony of the accused, a retired army soldier (Exh. “C”, p. 2, rec.), that his father-in-law made
up the case against him, because his father-in-law, Paulino
Acena — also a retired PC (Exh.
“C”, p. 2, rec.), did not like him as a husband for his daughter,
cannot be entirely ignored.

In view of Our findings of fact as aforestated, there is no need to discuss the second issue
of double jeopardy raised by petitioner.

It should be stressed that the petitioner herein was first
charged with public scandal for the same incident and paid the corresponding
fine immediately.

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS ON JULY 29, 1977, AFFIRMING THAT OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH FOUND THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF VIOLA­TION
OF PD NO. 9[3], MUST BE, AS IT
IS HEREBY, SET ASIDE AND REVERSED; THE ACCUSED IS HEREBY ACQUITTED OF SAID
CHARGE.  NO COSTS.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez,
Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.