Supreme Court of the Philippines and declaring paragraph 2 of Article

202 of the Revised Penal Code

unconstitutional.
616 Phil. 449 Respondents Evangeline Siton and
Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged
THIRD DIVISION with vagrancy pursuant to Article
202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code in
G.R. No. 169364, September two separate Informations dated
18, 2009 November 18, 2003, docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 115,716-C-2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and 115,717-C-2003 and raffled to
PETITIONER, VS. EVANGELINE Branch 3 of the Municipal Trial
SITON Y SACIL AND KRYSTEL Court in Cities, Davao City. The
KATE SAGARANO Y MEFANIA,
RESPONDENTS. Informations, read:

DECISION That on or about November 14,

2003, in the City of Davao,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
If a man is called to be a street the above-mentioned accused,
sweeper, he should sweep streets willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
even as Michelangelo painted, or wandered and loitered around San
Beethoven composed music, or Pedro and Legaspi Streets, this City,
Shakespeare wrote poetry. He without any visible means to support
should sweep streets so well that all herself nor lawful and justifiable
the hosts of Heaven and Earth will purpose.[2]
pause to say, here lived a great street
sweeper who did his job well. Article 202 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes;
Assailed in this petition for review penalty. -- The following are vagrants:
on certiorari is the July 29, 2005
Order[1] of Branch 11, Davao City 1. Any person having no apparent
Regional Trial Court in Special Civil means of subsistence, who has the
Case No. 30-500-2004 granting physical ability to work and who
respondents' Petition for Certiorari neglects to apply himself or herself
to some lawful calling; pesos, or both, in the discretion of
the court.
2. Any person found loitering
about public or semi-public Instead of submitting their counter-
buildings or places or tramping or affidavits as directed, respondents
wandering about the country or filed separate Motions to Quash[3] on
the streets without visible means the ground that Article 202 (2) is
of support; unconstitutional for being vague and
overbroad.
3. Any idle or dissolute person who
lodges in houses of ill fame; ruffians In an Order[4] dated April 28, 2004,
or pimps and those who habitually the municipal trial court denied the
associate with prostitutes; motions and directed respondents
anew to file their respective counter-
4. Any person who, not being affidavits. The municipal trial court
included in the provisions of other also declared that the law on
articles of this Code, shall be found vagrancy was enacted pursuant to
loitering in any inhabited or the State's police power and justified
uninhabited place belonging to by the Latin maxim "salus populi est
another without any lawful or suprem(a) lex," which calls for the
justifiable purpose; subordination of individual benefit
to the interest of the greater number,
5. Prostitutes. thus:
For the purposes of this article, Our law on vagrancy was enacted
women who, for money or profit, pursuant to the police power of the
habitually indulge in sexual State. An authority on police power,
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are Professor Freund describes
deemed to be prostitutes. laconically police power "as the
power of promoting public welfare
Any person found guilty of any of by restraining and regulating the use
the offenses covered by this articles of liberty and property." (Citations
shall be punished by arresto menor or a omitted). In fact the person's acts
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in and acquisitions are hemmed in by
case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in the police power of the state. The
its medium period to prision justification found in the Latin
correccional in its minimum period or a maxim, salus populi est supreme (sic)
fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 lex" (the god of the people is the
Supreme Law). This calls for the Respondents thus filed an original
subordination of individual benefit petition for certiorari and
to the interests of the greater prohibition with the Regional Trial
number.In the case at bar the Court of Davao City,[6] directly
affidavit of the arresting police challenging the constitutionality of
officer, SPO1 JAY PLAZA with the anti-vagrancy law, claiming that
Annex "A" lucidly shows that there the definition of the crime of
was a prior surveillance conducted in vagrancy under Article 202 (2), apart
view of the reports that vagrants and from being vague, results as well in
prostitutes proliferate in the place an arbitrary identification of
where the two accused (among other violators, since the definition of the
women) were wandering and in the crime includes in its coverage
wee hours of night and soliciting persons who are otherwise
male customer. Thus, on that basis performing ordinary peaceful acts.
the prosecution should be given a They likewise claimed that Article
leeway to prove its case. Thus, in the 202 (2) violated the equal protection
interest of substantial justice, both clause under the Constitution
prosecution and defense must be because it discriminates against the
given their day in Court: the poor and unemployed, thus
prosecution proof of the crime, and permitting an arbitrary and
the author thereof; the defense, to unreasonable classification.
show that the acts of the accused in
the indictment can't be categorized The State, through the Office of the
as a crime.[5] Solicitor General, argued that
pursuant to the Court's ruling in
The municipal trial court also noted Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,[7] the
that in the affidavit of the arresting overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
police officer, SPO1 Jay Plaza, it was apply only to free speech cases and
stated that there was a prior not to penal statutes. It also asserted
surveillance conducted on the two that Article 202 (2) must be
accused in an area reported to be presumed valid and constitutional,
frequented by vagrants and since the respondents failed to
prostitutes who solicited sexual overcome this presumption.
favors. Hence, the prosecution
should be given the opportunity to On July 29, 2005, the Regional Trial
prove the crime, and the defense to Court issued the assailed Order
rebut the evidence. granting the petition, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, PRESCINDING to arrest a person for being "found
FROM THE FOREGOING, the loitering about public or semi-public
instant Petition is hereby buildings or places or tramping or
GRANTED. Paragraph 2 of Article wandering about the country or the
202 of the Revised Penal Code is streets without visible means of
hereby declared unconstitutional and support" offers too wide a latitude
the Order of the court a quo, dated for arbitrary determinations as to
April 28, 2004, denying the who should be arrested and who
petitioners' Motion to Quash is set should not.
aside and the said court is ordered to
dismiss the subject criminal cases Loitering about and wandering have
against the petitioners pending become national pastimes
before it. particularly in these times of
recession when there are many who
SO ORDERED.[8] are "without visible means of
support" not by reason of choice but
In declaring Article 202 (2) by force of circumstance as borne
unconstitutional, the trial court out by the high unemployment rate
opined that the law is vague and it in the entire country.
violated the equal protection clause.
It held that the "void for vagueness" To authorize law enforcement
doctrine is equally applicable in authorities to arrest someone for
testing the validity of penal statutes. nearly no other reason than the fact
Citing Papachristou v. City of that he cannot find gainful
Jacksonville,[9] where an anti vagrancy employment would indeed be adding
ordinance was struck down as insult to injury.[10]
unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court of the United States, the trial On its pronouncement that Article
court ruled: 202 (2) violated the equal protection
clause of the Constitution, the trial
The U.S. Supreme Court's court declared:
justifications for striking down the
Jacksonville Vagrancy Ordinance are The application of the Anti-
equally applicable to paragraph 2 of Vagrancy Law, crafted in the 1930s,
Article 202 of the Revised Penal to our situation at present runs afoul
Code. of the equal protection clause of the
constitution as it offers no
Indeed, to authorize a police officer reasonable classification between
those covered by the law and those of its constitutionality; that, citing
who are not. Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan,[13] the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
Class legislation is such legislation have special application to free-
which denies rights to one which are speech cases only and are not
accorded to others, or inflicts upon appropriate for testing the validity of
one individual a more severe penalty penal statutes; that respondents
than is imposed upon another in like failed to overcome the presumed
case offending. validity of the statute, failing to
prove that it was vague under the
Applying this to the case at bar, since standards set out by the Courts; and
the definition of Vagrancy under that the State may regulate individual
Article 202 of the Revised Penal conduct for the promotion of public
Code offers no guidelines or any welfare in the exercise of its police
other reasonable indicators to power.
differentiate those who have no
visible means of support by force of On the other hand, respondents
circumstance and those who choose argue against the limited application
to loiter about and bum around, who of the overbreadth and vagueness
are the proper subjects of vagrancy doctrines. They insist that Article
legislation, it cannot pass a judicial 202 (2) on its face violates the
scrutiny of its constitutionality.[11] constitutionally-guaranteed rights to
due process and the equal protection
Hence, this petition for review on of the laws; that the due process
certiorari raising the sole issue of: vagueness standard, as distinguished
from the free speech vagueness
WHETHER THE REGIONAL doctrine, is adequate to declare
TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN void on its face; and that the
DECLARING presumption of constitutionality was
UNCONSTITUTIONAL adequately overthrown.
ARTICLE 202 (2) OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE[12] The Court finds for petitioner.

The power to define crimes and

Petitioner argues that every statute is
prescribe their corresponding
presumed valid and all reasonable
penalties is legislative in nature and
doubts should be resolved in favor
inherent in the sovereign power of
the state to maintain social order as Act No. 8189 can be deemed as a
an aspect of police power. The facial challenge. An appropriate "as
legislature may even forbid and applied" challenge in the instant
penalize acts formerly considered Petition should be limited only to
innocent and lawful provided that no Section 45 (j) in relation to Sections
constitutional rights have been 10 (g) and (j) of Republic Act No.
abridged.[14] However, in exercising 8189 - the provisions upon which
its power to declare what acts petitioners are charged. An expanded
constitute a crime, the legislature examination of the law covering
must inform the citizen with provisions which are alien to
reasonable precision what acts it petitioners' case would be
intends to prohibit so that he may antagonistic to the rudiment that for
have a certain understandable rule of judicial review to be exercised, there
conduct and know what acts it is his must be an existing case or
duty to avoid.[15] This requirement controversy that is appropriate or
has come to be known as the void- ripe for determination, and not
for-vagueness doctrine which conjectural or anticipatory.[18]
states that "a statute which either
forbids or requires the doing of an The first statute punishing vagrancy -
act in terms so vague that men of Act No. 519 - was modeled after
common intelligence must American vagrancy statutes and
necessarily guess at its meaning and passed by the Philippine
differ as to its application, violates Commission in 1902. The Penal
the first essential of due process of Code of Spain of 1870 which was in
law."[16] force in this country up to
December 31, 1931 did not contain a
In Spouses Romualdez v. provision on vagrancy.[19] While
COMELEC,[17] the Court recognized historically an Anglo-American
the application of the void-for- concept of crime prevention, the law
vagueness doctrine to criminal on vagrancy was included by the
statutes in appropriate cases. The Philippine legislature as a permanent
Court therein held: feature of the Revised Penal Code in
Article 202 thereof which, to repeat,
At the outset, we declare that under provides:
these terms, the opinions of the
dissent which seek to bring to the ART. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes;
fore the purported ambiguities of a penalty. - The following are vagrants:
long list of provisions in Republic
1. Any person having no apparent its medium period to prision
means of subsistence, who has the correccional in its minimum period or a
physical ability to work and who fine ranging from 200 to 2,000
neglects to apply himself or herself pesos, or both, in the discretion of
to some lawful calling; the court.

2. Any person found loitering about In the instant case, the assailed
public or semi-public buildings or provision is paragraph (2), which
places, or tramping or wandering defines a vagrant as any person
about the country or the streets found loitering about public or semi-
without visible means of support; public buildings or places, or
tramping or wandering about the
3. Any idle or dissolute person who country or the streets without visible
lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians means of support. This provision
or pimps and those who habitually was based on the second clause of
associate with prostitutes; Section 1 of Act No. 519 which
defined "vagrant" as "every person
4. Any person who, not being found loitering about saloons or dramshops
included in the provisions of other or gambling houses, or tramping or straying
articles of this Code, shall be found through the country without visible means of
loitering in any inhabited or support." The second clause was
uninhabited place belonging to essentially retained with the
another without any lawful or modification that the places under
justifiable purpose; which the offense might be
committed is now expressed in
5. Prostitutes. general terms - public or semi-public
places.
For the purposes of this article,
women who, for money or profit, The Regional Trial Court, in
habitually indulge in sexual asserting the unconstitutionality of
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are Article 202 (2), take support mainly
deemed to be prostitutes. from the U.S. Supreme Court's
opinion in the Papachristou v. City of
Any person found guilty of any of Jacksonville[20] case, which in essence
the offenses covered by this article declares:
shall be punished by arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in Living under a rule of law entails
case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in various suppositions, one of which is
that "[all persons] are entitled to be The Jacksonville ordinance makes
informed as to what the State criminal activities which, by modern
commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. standards, are normally innocent.
New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. S. "Nightwalking" is one. Florida
453. construes the ordinance not to make
criminal one night's wandering,
Lanzetta is one of a well recognized Johnson v. State, 202 So.2d at 855,
group of cases insisting that the law only the "habitual" wanderer or, as
give fair notice of the offending the ordinance describes it, "common
conduct. See Connally v. General night walkers." We know, however,
Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 from experience that sleepless
U. S. 391; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., people often walk at night, perhaps
274 U. S. 445; United States v. hopeful that sleep-inducing
Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81. In relaxation will result.
the field of regulatory statutes
governing business activities, where Luis Munoz-Marin, former
the acts limited are in a narrow Governor of Puerto Rico,
category, greater leeway is allowed. commented once that "loafing" was
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United a national virtue in his
States, 342 U. S. 337; United States Commonwealth, and that it should
v. National Dairy Products Corp., be encouraged. It is, however, a
372 U. S. 29; United States v. crime in Jacksonville.
Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1.
xxxx
The poor among us, the minorities,
the average householder, are not in Persons "wandering or strolling"
business and not alerted to the from place to place have been
regulatory schemes of vagrancy laws; extolled by Walt Whitman and
and we assume they would have no Vachel Lindsay. The qualification
understanding of their meaning and "without any lawful purpose or
impact if they read them. Nor are object" may be a trap for innocent
they protected from being caught in acts. Persons "neglecting all lawful
the vagrancy net by the necessity of business and habitually spending
having a specific intent to commit an their time by frequenting . . . places
unlawful act. See Screws v. United where alcoholic beverages are sold
States, 325 U. S. 91; Boyce Motor or served" would literally embrace
Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra. many members of golf clubs and city
clubs.
 "The common ground which brings
Walkers and strollers and wanderers such a motley assortment of human
may be going to or coming from a troubles before the magistrates in
burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be vagrancy-type proceedings is the
"casing" a place for a holdup. Letting procedural laxity which permits
one's wife support him is an intra- 'conviction' for almost any kind of
family matter, and normally of no conduct and the existence of the
concern to the police. Yet it may, of House of Correction as an easy and
course, be the setting for numerous convenient dumping-ground for
crimes. problems that appear to have no
other immediate solution." Foote,
The difficulty is that these activities Vagrancy-Type Law and Its
are historically part of the amenities Administration, 104 U.Pa.L.Rev.
of life as we have known them. They 603, 631.
are not mentioned in the
Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. xxxx
These unwritten amenities have
been, in part, responsible for giving Another aspect of the ordinance's
our people the feeling of vagueness appears when we focus
independence and self-confidence, not on the lack of notice given a
the feeling of creativity. These potential offender, but on the effect
amenities have dignified the right of of the unfettered discretion it places
dissent, and have honored the right in the hands of the Jacksonville
to be nonconformists and the right police. Caleb Foote, an early student
to defy submissiveness. They have of this subject, has called the
encouraged lives of high spirits, vagrancy-type law as offering
rather than hushed, suffocating "punishment by analogy." Such
silence. crimes, though long common in
Russia, are not compatible with our
xxxx constitutional system.
Where the list of crimes is so all- xxxx
inclusive and generalized as the one
in this ordinance, those convicted A presumption that people who
may be punished for no more than might walk or loaf or loiter or stroll
vindicating affronts to police or frequent houses where liquor is
authority: sold, or who are supported by their
wives or who look suspicious to the
police are to become future criminals our legal system, ignorance of the
is too precarious for a rule of law. law excuses no one from compliance
The implicit presumption in these therewith.[22] This principle is of
generalized vagrancy standards -- Spanish origin, and we adopted it to
that crime is being nipped in the bud govern and limit legal conduct in this
-- is too extravagant to deserve jurisdiction. Under American law,
extended treatment. Of course, ignorance of the law is merely a
vagrancy statutes are useful to the traditional rule that admits of
police. Of course, they are nets exceptions.[23]
making easy the roundup of so-
called undesirables. But the rule of Moreover, the Jacksonville ordinance
law implies equality and justice in its was declared unconstitutional on
application. Vagrancy laws of the account of specific provisions
Jacksonville type teach that the thereof, which are not found in
scales of justice are so tipped that Article 202 (2). The ordinance
even-handed administration of the (Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 257)
law is not possible. The rule of law, provided, as follows:
evenly applied to minorities as well
as majorities, to the poor as well as Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute
the rich, is the great mucilage that persons who go about begging;
holds society together.[21] common gamblers, persons who use
juggling or unlawful games or plays,
The underlying principles in common drunkards, common night
Papachristou are that: 1) the assailed walkers, thieves, pilferers or
Jacksonville ordinance "fails to give a pickpockets, traders in stolen
person of ordinary intelligence fair property, lewd, wanton and
notice that his contemplated conduct lascivious persons, keepers of
is forbidden by the statute;" and 2) it gambling places, common railers and
encourages or promotes brawlers, persons wandering or
opportunities for the application of strolling around from place to place
discriminatory law enforcement. without any lawful purpose or
object, habitual loafers, disorderly
The said underlying principle in persons, persons neglecting all lawful
Papachristou that the Jacksonville business and habitually spending
ordinance, or Article 202 (2) in this their time by frequenting houses of
case, fails to give fair notice of what ill fame, gaming houses, or places
constitutes forbidden conduct, finds where alcoholic beverages are sold
no application here because under or served, persons able to work but
habitually living upon the earnings of constitute a "trap for innocent acts."
their wives or minor children shall
be deemed vagrants and, upon Under the Constitution, the people
conviction in the Municipal Court are guaranteed the right to be secure
shall be punished as provided for in their persons, houses, papers and
Class D offenses. effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in for any purpose, and no search
Jacksonville declared the ordinance warrant or warrant of arrest shall
unconstitutional, because such issue except upon probable cause to
activities or habits as nightwalking, be determined personally by the
wandering or strolling around judge after examination under oath
without any lawful purpose or or affirmation of the complainant
object, habitual loafing, habitual and the witnesses he may produce,
spending of time at places where and particularly describing the place
alcoholic beverages are sold or to be searched and the persons or
served, and living upon the things to be seized.[24] Thus, as with
earnings of wives or minor any other act or offense, the
children, which are otherwise requirement of probable cause
common and normal, were declared provides an acceptable limit on
illegal. But these are specific acts police or executive authority that
or activities not found in Article may otherwise be abused in relation
202 (2). The closest to Article 202 to the search or arrest of persons
(2) - "any person found loitering about found to be violating Article 202 (2).
public or semi-public buildings or places, or The fear exhibited by the
tramping or wandering about the country or respondents, echoing Jacksonville, that
the streets without visible means of support" unfettered discretion is placed in the
- from the Jacksonville ordinance, hands of the police to make an arrest
would be "persons wandering or strolling or search, is therefore assuaged by
around from place to place without any the constitutional requirement of
lawful purpose or object." But these two probable cause, which is one less
acts are still not the same: Article than certainty or proof, but more
202 (2) is qualified by "without than suspicion or possibility.[25]
visible means of support" while the
Jacksonville ordinance prohibits Evidently, the requirement of
wandering or strolling "without any probable cause cannot be done away
lawful purpose or object," which was with arbitrarily without pain of
held by the U.S. Supreme Court to punishment, for, absent this
requirement, the authorities are surveillance operations on
necessarily guilty of abuse. The respondents prior to their arrest. On
grounds of suspicion are reasonable the surface, this satisfies the
when, in the absence of actual belief probable cause requirement under
of the arresting officers, the our Constitution. For this reason, we
suspicion that the person to be are not moved by respondents'
arrested is probably guilty of trepidation that Article 202 (2) could
committing the offense, is based on have been a source of police abuse in
actual facts, i.e., supported by their case.
circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable Since the Revised Penal Code took
cause of guilt of the person to be effect in 1932, no challenge has ever
arrested. A reasonable suspicion been made upon the constitutionality
therefore must be founded on of Article 202 except now. Instead,
probable cause, coupled with good throughout the years, we have
faith of the peace officers making witnessed the streets and parks
the arrest.[26] become dangerous and unsafe, a
haven for beggars, harassing "watch-
The State cannot in a cavalier your-car" boys, petty thieves and
fashion intrude into the persons of robbers, pickpockets, swindlers,
its citizens as well as into their gangs, prostitutes, and individuals
houses, papers and effects. The performing acts that go beyond
constitutional provision sheathes the decency and morality, if not basic
private individual with an humanity. The streets and parks have
impenetrable armor against become the training ground for petty
unreasonable searches and seizures. offenders who graduate into
It protects the privacy and sanctity hardened and battle-scarred
of the person himself against criminals. Everyday, the news is rife
unlawful arrests and other forms of with reports of innocent and
restraint, and prevents him from hardworking people being robbed,
being irreversibly cut off from that swindled, harassed or mauled - if not
domestic security which renders the killed - by the scourge of the streets.
lives of the most unhappy in some Blue collar workers are robbed
measure agreeable.[27] straight from withdrawing hard-
earned money from the ATMs
As applied to the instant case, it (automated teller machines); students
appears that the police authorities are held up for having to use and
have been conducting previous thus exhibit publicly their mobile
phones; frail and helpless men are times, and today, they have also
mauled by thrill-seeking gangs; come to be associated with the
innocent passers-by are stabbed to struggle to improve the citizens'
death by rowdy drunken men quality of life, which is guaranteed by
walking the streets; fair-looking or our Constitution.[28] Civilly, they are
pretty women are stalked and covered by the "abuse of rights"
harassed, if not abducted, raped and doctrine embodied in the preliminary
then killed; robbers, thieves, articles of the Civil Code concerning
pickpockets and snatchers case Human Relations, to the end, in part,
streets and parks for possible that any person who willfully causes
victims; the old are swindled of their loss or injury to another in a manner
life savings by conniving streetsmart that is contrary to morals, good
bilkers and con artists on the prowl; customs or public policy shall
beggars endlessly pester and compensate the latter for the
panhandle pedestrians and damage.[29] This provision is,
commuters, posing a health threat together with the succeeding articles
and putting law-abiding drivers and on human relations, intended to
citizens at risk of running them over. embody certain basic principles "that
All these happen on the streets and are to be observed for the rightful
in public places, day or night. relationship between human beings
and for the stability of the social
The streets must be protected. Our order."[30]
people should never dread having to
ply them each day, or else we can In civil law, for example, the
never say that we have performed summary remedy of ejectment is
our task to our brothers and sisters. intended to prevent criminal
We must rid the streets of the disorder and breaches of the peace
scourge of humanity, and restore and to discourage those who,
order, peace, civility, decency and believing themselves entitled to the
morality in them. possession of the property, resort to
force rather than to some
This is exactly why we have public appropriate action in court to assert
order laws, to which Article 202 (2) their claims.[31] Any private person
belongs. These laws were crafted to may abate a public nuisance which is
maintain minimum standards of specially injurious to him by
decency, morality and civility in removing, or if necessary, by
human society. These laws may be destroying the thing which
traced all the way back to ancient constitutes the same, without
committing a breach of the peace, or public peace or cause alarm and
doing unnecessary injury.[32] apprehension in the community.
Being poor or unemployed is not a
Criminally, public order laws license or a justification to act
encompass a whole range of acts - indecently or to engage in immoral
from public indecencies and conduct.
immoralities, to public nuisances, to
disorderly conduct. The acts Vagrancy must not be so lightly
punished are made illegal by their treated as to be considered
offensiveness to society's basic constitutionally offensive. It is a
sensibilities and their adverse effect public order crime which punishes
on the quality of life of the people of persons for conducting themselves,
society. For example, the issuance or at a certain place and time which
making of a bouncing check is orderly society finds unusual, under
deemed a public nuisance, a crime such conditions that are repugnant
against public order that must be and outrageous to the common
abated.[33] As a matter of public standards and norms of decency and
policy, the failure to turn over the morality in a just, civilized and
proceeds of the sale of the goods ordered society, as would engender a
covered by a trust receipt or to justifiable concern for the safety and
return said goods, if not sold, is a well-being of members of the
public nuisance to be abated by the community.
imposition of penal sanctions.[34]
Thus, public nuisances must be Instead of taking an active position
abated because they have the effect declaring public order laws
of interfering with the comfortable unconstitutional, the State should
enjoyment of life or property by train its eye on their effective
members of a community. implementation, because it is in this
area that the Court perceives
Article 202 (2) does not violate the difficulties. Red light districts
equal protection clause; neither does abound, gangs work the streets in
it discriminate against the poor and the wee hours of the morning,
the unemployed. Offenders of public dangerous robbers and thieves ply
order laws are punished not for their their trade in the trains stations,
status, as for being poor or drunken men terrorize law-abiding
unemployed, but for conducting citizens late at night and urinate on
themselves under such otherwise decent corners of our
circumstances as to endanger the streets. Rugby-sniffing individuals
crowd our national parks and busy which enjoins upon each department
intersections. Prostitutes wait for a becoming respect for the acts of
customers by the roadside all around the other departments. The theory is
the metropolis, some even venture in that as the joint act of Congress and
bars and restaurants. Drug-crazed the President of the Philippines, a
men loiter around dark avenues law has been carefully studied,
waiting to pounce on helpless crafted and determined to be in
citizens. Dangerous groups wander accordance with the fundamental law
around, casing homes and before it was finally enacted.[37]
establishments for their next hit. The
streets must be made safe once It must not be forgotten that police
more. Though a man's house is his power is an inherent attribute of
castle,[35] outside on the streets, the sovereignty. It has been defined as
king is fair game. the power vested by the Constitution
in the legislature to make, ordain,
The dangerous streets must and establish all manner of
surrender to orderly society. wholesome and reasonable laws,
statutes and ordinances, either with
Finally, we agree with the position of penalties or without, not repugnant
the State that first and foremost, to the Constitution, as they shall
Article 202 (2) should be presumed judge to be for the good and welfare
valid and constitutional. When of the commonwealth, and for the
confronted with a constitutional subjects of the same. The power is
question, it is elementary that every plenary and its scope is vast and
court must approach it with grave pervasive, reaching and justifying
care and considerable caution measures for public health, public
bearing in mind that every statute is safety, public morals, and the general
presumed valid and every reasonable welfare.[38] As an obvious police
doubt should be resolved in favor of power measure, Article 202 (2) must
its constitutionality.[36] The policy of therefore be viewed in a
our courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional light.
constitutional questions and to
presume that the acts of the political WHEREFORE, the petition is
departments are valid in the absence GRANTED. The Decision of
of a clear and unmistakable showing Branch 11 of the Regional Trial
to the contrary. To doubt is to Court of Davao City in Special Civil
sustain, this presumption is based on Case No. 30-500-2004 declaring
the doctrine of separation of powers Article 202, paragraph 2 of the
Revised Penal Code G.R. No. 148560, November 19,
[7]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL is 2001, 369 SCRA 394.

REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
[8] Rollo, p. 31.
Let the proceedings in Criminal
Cases Nos. 115,716-C-2003 and 405 U.S. 156, 31 L.Ed. 2d 110
[9]

115,717-C-2003 thus continue. (1972).

No costs. [10] Rollo, p. 31.

SO ORDERED. [11] Id.

Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, and [12] Id. at 11.

Bersamin*, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 152259, July 29, 2004,
[13]

435 SCRA 371.

*In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio [14] 21 Am Jur §§ 12, 13.
Eduardo B. Nachura per raffle dated
September 16, 2009. [15]Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95; Giaccio
v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 339; U.S. v.
Records, pp. 108-113; penned by
[1]
Brewer, 139 U.S. 278, 35 L.Ed. 190,
Judge Virginia Hofileña-Europa. 193.
[2] Rollo, p. 25. [16] Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra note
6.
[3] Records, pp. 37-76.
[17] Supra note 12.
Id. at 31-34; penned by Presiding
[4]

Judge Romeo C. Abarracin. [18] Id. at 420.

[5] Id. at 33. [19] 57 P.L.J. 421 (1982).

Id. at 31. Docketed as Special Civil

[6] [20] Supra note 8.
Case No. 30-500-2004 and raffled to
Branch 11 of the Regional Trial [21] Supra note 8 at 405 U.S. 163-171.
Court of Davao City.
[22] CIVIL CODE, Article 3.
 is not present here because the jury
Bryan v. United States (96-8422),
[23] found that this petitioner knew that
122 F.3d 90. The Court held: his conduct was unlawful.

Petitioner next argues that we must Thus, the willfulness requirement of

read §924(a)(1)(D) to require §924(a)(1)(D) does not carve out an
knowledge of the law because of our exception to the traditional rule that
interpretation of "willfully" in two ignorance of the law is no excuse;
other contexts. In certain cases knowledge that the conduct is
involving willful violations of the tax unlawful is all that is required.
laws, we have concluded that the (Emphasis supplied)
jury must find that the defendant
was aware of the specific provision [24] CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec.
of the tax code that he was charged 2.
with violating. See, e.g., Cheek v.
United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 79 C.J.S., Search and Seizures,
[25]

(1991). Similarly, in order to satisfy a Sec. 74, 865.

willful violation in Ratzlaf, we
concluded that the jury had to find People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917,
[26]

that the defendant knew that his February 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 174.
structuring of cash transactions to
avoid a reporting requirement was People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754,
[27]

unlawful. See 510 U.S., at 138, 149. December 22, 1999, 321 SCRA 459.
Those cases, however, are readily
distinguishable. Both the tax cases [28]CONSTITUTION, Article II,
and Ratzlaf involved highly technical Section 9: The State shall promote a
statutes that presented the danger of just and dynamic social order that
ensnaring individuals engaged in will ensure the prosperity and
apparently innocent conduct. As a independence of the nation and free
result, we held that these statutes the people from poverty through
"carv[e] out an exception to the policies that provide adequate social
traditional rule" that ignorance of services, promote full employment, a
the law is no excuse and require that rising standard of living, and an
the defendant have knowledge of the improved quality of life for all.
law. The danger of convicting
individuals engaged in apparently [29] CIVIL CODE, Article 19.
innocent activity that motivated our
decisions in the tax cases and Ratzlaf [30] Sea Commercial Company Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122823,
November 25, 1999, 319 SCRA 210.

Drilon v. Gaurana, No. L-35482,

[31]

April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 342.

[32] CIVIL CODE, Article 704.

Ruiz v. People, G.R. No. 160893,

[33]

November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476.

Tiomico v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

[34]

No. 122539, March 4, 1999, 304

SCRA 216.

Villanueva v. Querubin, G.R. No. L-

[35]

26177, 48 SCRA 345.

Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R.

[36]

No. 128096, January 20, 1999, 301

SCRA 298.

Macasiano v. National Housing

[37]

Authority, G.R. No. 107921, July 1,

1993, 224 SCRA 236.

Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of

[38]

the Philippines, A Commentary, pp.

95-98 [1996].

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org