MANILA – The Supreme Court of the Philippines has clarified that the prohibition on carrying weapons during elections applies mainly to firearms and similar regulated weapons, and does not automatically include bladed instruments such as knives unless these are brought inside or near voting precincts.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Court’s Third Division granted a motion for reconsideration and overturned its earlier ruling that found a man guilty of violating the election weapon ban under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended by Republic Act No. 7166.

The case stemmed from the man’s arrest during the 2018 elections after he was found carrying a kitchen knife outside his residence without written authorization from the Commission on Elections.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals had earlier found him guilty of carrying a deadly weapon during the election period, a ruling initially affirmed by the Supreme Court.

However, upon review, the High Court acquitted the man after determining that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements required by law.

The Court clarified that while firearms are generally prohibited in public places during the election period, bladed instruments are treated differently under the law.

Citing its ruling in Buella v. People, the SC said knives and similar items are not covered by the provision banning firearms outside residences or places of business during elections. Instead, these fall under a separate provision that only prohibits carrying deadly weapons within a voting precinct or within a 100-meter radius, and only during specific election-related days and hours.

Applying this interpretation, the Court found that although the man was proven to have carried a knife during the election period, there was no evidence showing he was inside or near a voting precinct, nor that the act occurred during the specific period covered by the prohibition.

In the absence of proof on these key elements, the Court ruled that the man’s guilt was not established, leading to his acquittal.