SC: Knife ban during elections limited to polling areas

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday clarified that carrying knives and other bladed instruments during the election period is not automatically prohibited, ruling that the ban applies only when such items are brought inside or near voting precincts.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the High Court’s Third Division granted a motion for reconsideration and acquitted a man previously convicted of violating the election gun ban under Section 261(p) of the Omnibus Election Code.

The case stemmed from the man’s arrest during the 2018 elections after authorities found him 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, a ruling initially upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, upon review, the High Court reversed its earlier decision, citing the prosecution’s failure to prove key elements of the offense.

The SC clarified that while firearms and similar regulated weapons are prohibited in public places during the election period, bladed instruments such as knives fall under a different provision of the law.

Under Section 261(p), knives are only banned if carried within a voting precinct or within a 100-meter radius during specific election days and hours.

Citing its ruling in Buella v. People, the High Court emphasized that bladed weapons are not covered by the broader prohibition under Section 261(q) of the election code and Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166, which apply primarily to firearms.

Applying this interpretation, the SC found that although the man was indeed carrying a knife during the election period, there was no evidence that he was within a voting precinct or the restricted 100-meter zone, nor that the act occurred during the specific times covered by law.

“In the absence of proof that the accused was in or near a voting precinct during the specified days and hours, his guilt was not established,” SC said.