1/23/2017 G.R. No.

169364

TodayisMonday,January23,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.169364September18,2009

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,
vs.
EVANGELINESITONySACILandKRYSTELKATESAGARANOyMEFANIA,Respondents.

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

Ifamaniscalledtobeastreetsweeper,heshouldsweepstreetsevenasMichelangelopainted,or
Beethovencomposedmusic,orShakespearewrotepoetry.Heshouldsweepstreetssowellthatallthe
hostsofHeavenandEarthwillpausetosay,herelivedagreatstreetsweeperwhodidhisjobwell.

MartinLutherKing,Jr.

AssailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariistheJuly29,2005Order1ofBranch11,DavaoCityRegionalTrial
CourtinSpecialCivilCaseNo.305002004grantingrespondentsPetitionforCertiorarianddeclaringparagraph2
ofArticle202oftheRevisedPenalCodeunconstitutional.

RespondentsEvangelineSitonandKrystelKateSagaranowerechargedwithvagrancypursuanttoArticle202(2)
oftheRevisedPenalCodeintwoseparateInformationsdatedNovember18,2003,docketedasCriminalCaseNos.
115,716C2003and115,717C2003andraffledtoBranch3oftheMunicipalTrialCourtinCities,DavaoCity.The
Informations,read:

ThatonoraboutNovember14,2003,intheCityofDavao,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorable
Court,theabovementionedaccused,willfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslywanderedandloiteredaroundSanPedro
andLegaspiStreets,thisCity,withoutanyvisiblemeanstosupportherselfnorlawfulandjustifiablepurpose.2

Article202oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides:

Art.202.Vagrantsandprostitutespenalty.Thefollowingarevagrants:

1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who
neglectstoapplyhimselforherselftosomelawfulcalling

2.Anypersonfoundloiteringaboutpublicorsemipublicbuildingsorplacesortrampingorwanderingabout
thecountryorthestreetswithoutvisiblemeansofsupport

3.Anyidleordissolutepersonwholodgesinhousesofillfameruffiansorpimpsandthosewhohabitually
associatewithprostitutes

4.Anypersonwho,notbeingincludedintheprovisionsofotherarticlesofthisCode,shallbefoundloitering
inanyinhabitedoruninhabitedplacebelongingtoanotherwithoutanylawfulorjustifiablepurpose

5.Prostitutes.

For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
lasciviousconduct,aredeemedtobeprostitutes.

Anypersonfoundguiltyofanyoftheoffensescoveredbythisarticlesshallbepunishedbyarrestomenororafine
notexceeding200pesos,andincaseofrecidivism,byarrestomayorinitsmediumperiodtoprisioncorreccionalin
itsminimumperiodorafinerangingfrom200to2,000pesos,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 1/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364

Instead of submitting their counteraffidavits as directed, respondents filed separate Motions to Quash3 on the
groundthatArticle202(2)isunconstitutionalforbeingvagueandoverbroad.

InanOrder4datedApril28,2004,themunicipaltrialcourtdeniedthemotionsanddirectedrespondentsanewtofile
their respective counteraffidavits. The municipal trial court also declared that the law on vagrancy was enacted
pursuanttotheStatespolicepowerandjustifiedbytheLatinmaxim"saluspopuliestsuprem(a)lex,"whichcallsfor
thesubordinationofindividualbenefittotheinterestofthegreaternumber,thus:

OurlawonvagrancywasenactedpursuanttothepolicepoweroftheState.Anauthorityonpolicepower,Professor
Freunddescribeslaconicallypolicepower"asthepowerofpromotingpublicwelfarebyrestrainingandregulating
theuseoflibertyandproperty."(Citationsomitted).Infactthepersonsactsandacquisitionsarehemmedinbythe
policepowerofthestate.ThejustificationfoundintheLatinmaxim,saluspopuliestsupreme(sic)lex"(thegodof
thepeopleistheSupremeLaw).Thiscallsforthesubordinationofindividualbenefittotheinterestsofthegreater
number.Inthecaseatbartheaffidavitofthearrestingpoliceofficer,SPO1JAYPLAZAwithAnnex"A"lucidlyshows
thattherewasapriorsurveillanceconductedinviewofthereportsthatvagrantsandprostitutesproliferateinthe
place where the two accused (among other women) were wandering and in the wee hours of night and soliciting
malecustomer.Thus,onthatbasistheprosecutionshouldbegivenaleewaytoproveitscase.Thus,intheinterest
ofsubstantialjustice,bothprosecutionanddefensemustbegiventheirdayinCourt:theprosecutionproofofthe
crime, and the author thereof the defense, to show that the acts of the accused in the indictment cant be
categorizedasacrime.5

Themunicipaltrialcourtalsonotedthatintheaffidavitofthearrestingpoliceofficer,SPO1JayPlaza,itwasstated
thattherewasapriorsurveillanceconductedonthetwoaccusedinanareareportedtobefrequentedbyvagrants
and prostitutes who solicited sexual favors. Hence, the prosecution should be given the opportunity to prove the
crime,andthedefensetorebuttheevidence. 1avvphi1

RespondentsthusfiledanoriginalpetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCity,6
directlychallengingtheconstitutionalityoftheantivagrancylaw,claimingthatthedefinitionofthecrimeofvagrancy
under Article 202 (2), apart from being vague, results as well in an arbitrary identification of violators, since the
definitionofthecrimeincludesinitscoveragepersonswhoareotherwiseperformingordinarypeacefulacts.They
likewise claimed that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause under the Constitution because it
discriminatesagainstthepoorandunemployed,thuspermittinganarbitraryandunreasonableclassification.

The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that pursuant to the Courts ruling in Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan,7 the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases and not to penal
statutes.ItalsoassertedthatArticle202(2)mustbepresumedvalidandconstitutional,sincetherespondentsfailed
toovercomethispresumption.

OnJuly29,2005,theRegionalTrialCourtissuedtheassailedOrdergrantingthepetition,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:

WHEREFORE,PRESCINDINGFROMTHEFOREGOING,theinstantPetitionisherebyGRANTED.Paragraph2of
Article202oftheRevisedPenalCodeisherebydeclaredunconstitutionalandtheOrderofthecourtaquo,dated
April 28, 2004, denying the petitioners Motion to Quash is set aside and the said court is ordered to dismiss the
subjectcriminalcasesagainstthepetitionerspendingbeforeit.

SOORDERED.8

In declaring Article 202 (2) unconstitutional, the trial court opined that the law is vague and it violated the equal
protectionclause.Itheldthatthe"voidforvagueness"doctrineisequallyapplicableintestingthevalidityofpenal
statutes. Citing Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville,9 where an anti vagrancy ordinance was struck down as
unconstitutionalbytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,thetrialcourtruled:

The U.S. Supreme Courts justifications for striking down the Jacksonville Vagrancy Ordinance are equally
applicabletoparagraph2ofArticle202oftheRevisedPenalCode.

Indeed,toauthorizeapoliceofficertoarrestapersonforbeing"foundloiteringaboutpublicorsemipublicbuildings
orplacesortrampingorwanderingaboutthecountryorthestreetswithoutvisiblemeansofsupport"offerstoowide
alatitudeforarbitrarydeterminationsastowhoshouldbearrestedandwhoshouldnot.

Loiteringaboutandwanderinghavebecomenationalpastimesparticularlyinthesetimesofrecessionwhenthere
aremanywhoare"withoutvisiblemeansofsupport"notbyreasonofchoicebutbyforceofcircumstanceasborne
outbythehighunemploymentrateintheentirecountry.

Toauthorizelawenforcementauthoritiestoarrestsomeonefornearlynootherreasonthanthefactthathecannot
findgainfulemploymentwouldindeedbeaddinginsulttoinjury.10
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 2/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
On its pronouncement that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the trial court
declared:

The application of the AntiVagrancy Law, crafted in the 1930s, to our situation at present runs afoul of the equal
protectionclauseoftheconstitutionasitoffersnoreasonableclassificationbetweenthosecoveredbythelawand
thosewhoarenot.

Class legislation is such legislation which denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one
individualamoreseverepenaltythanisimposeduponanotherinlikecaseoffending.

Applyingthistothecaseatbar,sincethedefinitionofVagrancyunderArticle202oftheRevisedPenalCodeoffers
no guidelines or any other reasonable indicators to differentiate those who have no visible means of support by
force of circumstance and those who choose to loiter about and bum around, who are the proper subjects of
vagrancylegislation,itcannotpassajudicialscrutinyofitsconstitutionality.11

Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorariraisingthesoleissueof:

WHETHERTHEREGIONALTRIALCOURTCOMMITTEDAREVERSIBLEERRORINDECLARING
UNCONSTITUTIONALARTICLE202(2)OFTHEREVISEDPENALCODE12

Petitionerarguesthateverystatuteispresumedvalidandallreasonabledoubtsshouldberesolvedinfavorofits
constitutionalitythat,citingRomualdezv.Sandiganbayan,13theoverbreadthandvaguenessdoctrineshavespecial
application to freespeech cases only and are not appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes that
respondents failed to overcome the presumed validity of the statute, failing to prove that it was vague under the
standards set out by the Courts and that the State may regulate individual conduct for the promotion of public
welfareintheexerciseofitspolicepower.

Ontheotherhand,respondentsargueagainstthelimitedapplicationoftheoverbreadthandvaguenessdoctrines.
They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face violates the constitutionallyguaranteed rights to due process and the
equal protection of the laws that the due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech
vagueness doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its face and that the
presumptionofconstitutionalitywasadequatelyoverthrown.

TheCourtfindsforpetitioner.

Thepowertodefinecrimesandprescribetheircorrespondingpenaltiesislegislativeinnatureandinherentinthe
sovereignpowerofthestatetomaintainsocialorderasanaspectofpolicepower.Thelegislaturemayevenforbid
and penalize acts formerly considered innocent and lawful provided that no constitutional rights have been
abridged.14However,inexercisingitspowertodeclarewhatactsconstituteacrime,thelegislaturemustinformthe
citizenwithreasonableprecisionwhatactsitintendstoprohibitsothathemayhaveacertainunderstandablerule
ofconductandknowwhatactsitishisdutytoavoid.15Thisrequirementhascometobeknownasthevoidfor
vagueness doctrine which states that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application,
violatesthefirstessentialofdueprocessoflaw."16

InSpousesRomualdezv.COMELEC,17theCourtrecognizedtheapplicationofthevoidforvaguenessdoctrineto
criminalstatutesinappropriatecases.TheCourtthereinheld:

At the outset, we declare that under these terms, the opinions of the dissent which seek to bring to the fore the
purportedambiguitiesofalonglistofprovisionsinRepublicActNo.8189canbedeemedasafacialchallenge.An
appropriate "as applied" challenge in the instant Petition should be limited only to Section 45 (j) in relation to
Sections10(g)and(j)ofRepublicActNo.8189theprovisionsuponwhichpetitionersarecharged.Anexpanded
examinationofthelawcoveringprovisionswhicharealientopetitionerscasewouldbeantagonistictotherudiment
thatforjudicialreviewtobeexercised,theremustbeanexistingcaseorcontroversythatisappropriateorripefor
determination,andnotconjecturaloranticipatory.18

ThefirststatutepunishingvagrancyActNo.519wasmodeledafterAmericanvagrancystatutesandpassedby
the Philippine Commission in 1902. The Penal Code of Spain of 1870 which was in force in this country up to
December 31, 1931 did not contain a provision on vagrancy.19 While historically an AngloAmerican concept of
crime prevention, the law on vagrancy was included by the Philippine legislature as a permanent feature of the
RevisedPenalCodeinArticle202thereofwhich,torepeat,provides:

ART.202.Vagrantsandprostitutespenalty.Thefollowingarevagrants:

1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who
neglectstoapplyhimselforherselftosomelawfulcalling
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 3/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
2.Anypersonfoundloiteringaboutpublicorsemipublicbuildingsorplaces,ortrampingorwanderingabout
thecountryorthestreetswithoutvisiblemeansofsupport

3.Anyidleordissolutepersonwholodgesinhousesofillfameruffiansorpimpsandthosewhohabitually
associatewithprostitutes

4.Anypersonwho,notbeingincludedintheprovisionsofotherarticlesofthisCode,shallbefoundloitering
inanyinhabitedoruninhabitedplacebelongingtoanotherwithoutanylawfulorjustifiablepurpose

5.Prostitutes.

For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
lasciviousconduct,aredeemedtobeprostitutes.

Anypersonfoundguiltyofanyoftheoffensescoveredbythisarticleshallbepunishedbyarrestomenororafine
notexceeding200pesos,andincaseofrecidivism,byarrestomayorinitsmediumperiodtoprisioncorreccionalin
itsminimumperiodorafinerangingfrom200to2,000pesos,orboth,inthediscretionofthecourt.

Intheinstantcase,theassailedprovisionisparagraph(2),whichdefinesavagrantasanypersonfoundloitering
about public or semipublic buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without
visiblemeansofsupport.ThisprovisionwasbasedonthesecondclauseofSection1ofActNo.519whichdefined
"vagrant"as"everypersonfoundloiteringaboutsaloonsordramshopsorgamblinghouses,ortrampingorstraying
through the country without visible means of support." The second clause was essentially retained with the
modificationthattheplacesunderwhichtheoffensemightbecommittedisnowexpressedingeneraltermspublic
orsemipublicplaces.

The Regional Trial Court, in asserting the unconstitutionality of Article 202 (2), take support mainly from the U.S.
SupremeCourtsopinioninthePapachristouv.CityofJacksonville20case,whichinessencedeclares:

Livingunderaruleoflawentailsvarioussuppositions,oneofwhichisthat"[allpersons]areentitledtobeinformed
astowhattheStatecommandsorforbids."Lanzettav.NewJersey,306U.S.451,306U.S.453.

Lanzettaisoneofawellrecognizedgroupofcasesinsistingthatthelawgivefairnoticeoftheoffendingconduct.
SeeConnallyv.GeneralConstructionCo.,269U.S.385,269U.S.391Clinev.FrinkDairyCo.,274U.S.445
UnitedStatesv.CohenGroceryCo.,255U.S.81.Inthefieldofregulatorystatutesgoverningbusinessactivities,
wheretheactslimitedareinanarrowcategory,greaterleewayisallowed.BoyceMotorLines,Inc.v.UnitedStates,
342U.S.337UnitedStatesv.NationalDairyProductsCorp.,372U.S.29UnitedStatesv.Petrillo,332U.S.1.

Thepooramongus,theminorities,theaveragehouseholder,arenotinbusinessandnotalertedtotheregulatory
schemesofvagrancylawsandweassumetheywouldhavenounderstandingoftheirmeaningandimpactifthey
readthem.Noraretheyprotectedfrombeingcaughtinthevagrancynetbythenecessityofhavingaspecificintent
to commit an unlawful act. See Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91 Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States,
supra.

The Jacksonville ordinance makes criminal activities which, by modern standards, are normally innocent.
"Nightwalking"isone.Floridaconstruestheordinancenottomakecriminalonenight'swandering,Johnsonv.State,
202So.2dat855,onlythe"habitual"wandereror,astheordinancedescribesit,"commonnightwalkers."Weknow,
however,fromexperiencethatsleeplesspeopleoftenwalkatnight,perhapshopefulthatsleepinducingrelaxation
willresult.

Luis MunozMarin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once that "loafing" was a national virtue in his
Commonwealth,andthatitshouldbeencouraged.Itis,however,acrimeinJacksonville.

xxxx

Persons"wanderingorstrolling"fromplacetoplacehavebeenextolledbyWaltWhitmanandVachelLindsay.The
qualification "without any lawful purpose or object" may be a trap for innocent acts. Persons "neglecting all lawful
businessandhabituallyspendingtheirtimebyfrequenting...placeswherealcoholicbeveragesaresoldorserved"
wouldliterallyembracemanymembersofgolfclubsandcityclubs.

Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be
"casing"aplaceforaholdup.Lettingone'swifesupporthimisanintrafamilymatter,andnormallyofnoconcernto
thepolice.Yetitmay,ofcourse,bethesettingfornumerouscrimes.

Thedifficultyisthattheseactivitiesarehistoricallypartoftheamenitiesoflifeaswehaveknownthem.Theyarenot
mentionedintheConstitutionorintheBillofRights.Theseunwrittenamenitieshavebeen,inpart,responsiblefor
giving our people thefeelingofindependenceandselfconfidence,thefeelingof creativity. These amenities have

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 4/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
dignifiedtherightofdissent,andhavehonoredtherighttobenonconformistsandtherighttodefysubmissiveness.
Theyhaveencouragedlivesofhighspirits,ratherthanhushed,suffocatingsilence.

xxxx

Where the list of crimes is so allinclusive and generalized as the one in this ordinance, those convicted may be
punishedfornomorethanvindicatingaffrontstopoliceauthority:

"Thecommongroundwhichbringssuchamotleyassortmentofhumantroublesbeforethemagistratesinvagrancy
typeproceedingsistheprocedurallaxitywhichpermits'conviction'foralmostanykindofconductandtheexistence
oftheHouseofCorrectionasaneasyandconvenientdumpinggroundforproblemsthatappeartohavenoother
immediatesolution."Foote,VagrancyTypeLawandItsAdministration,104U.Pa.L.Rev.603,631.

xxxx

Another aspect of the ordinance's vagueness appears when we focus not on the lack of notice given a potential
offender,butontheeffectoftheunfettereddiscretionitplacesinthehandsoftheJacksonvillepolice.CalebFoote,
anearlystudentofthissubject,hascalledthevagrancytypelawasoffering"punishmentbyanalogy."Suchcrimes,
thoughlongcommoninRussia,arenotcompatiblewithourconstitutionalsystem.

xxxx

Apresumptionthatpeoplewhomightwalkorloaforloiterorstrollorfrequenthouseswhereliquorissold,orwho
aresupportedbytheirwivesorwholooksuspicioustothepolicearetobecomefuturecriminalsistooprecariousfor
aruleoflaw.Theimplicitpresumptioninthesegeneralizedvagrancystandardsthatcrimeisbeingnippedinthe
budistooextravaganttodeserveextendedtreatment.Ofcourse,vagrancystatutesareusefultothepolice.Of
course,theyarenetsmakingeasytheroundupofsocalledundesirables.Buttheruleoflawimpliesequalityand
justiceinitsapplication.VagrancylawsoftheJacksonvilletypeteachthatthescalesofjusticearesotippedthat
evenhanded administration of the law is not possible. The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as
majorities,tothepooraswellastherich,isthegreatmucilagethatholdssocietytogether.21

TheunderlyingprinciplesinPapachristouarethat:1)theassailedJacksonvilleordinance"failstogiveapersonof
ordinaryintelligencefairnoticethathiscontemplatedconductisforbiddenbythestatute"and2)itencouragesor
promotesopportunitiesfortheapplicationofdiscriminatorylawenforcement.

ThesaidunderlyingprincipleinPapachristouthattheJacksonvilleordinance,orArticle202(2)inthiscase,failsto
give fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct, finds no application here because under our legal system,
ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.22 This principle is of Spanish origin, and we
adoptedittogovernandlimitlegalconductinthisjurisdiction.UnderAmericanlaw,ignoranceofthelawismerelya
traditionalrulethatadmitsofexceptions.23

Moreover,theJacksonvilleordinancewasdeclaredunconstitutionalonaccountofspecificprovisionsthereof,which
arenotfoundinArticle202(2).Theordinance(JacksonvilleOrdinanceCode257)provided,asfollows:

Roguesandvagabonds,ordissolutepersonswhogoaboutbeggingcommongamblers,personswhousejuggling
orunlawfulgamesorplays,commondrunkards,commonnightwalkers,thieves,pilferersorpickpockets,tradersin
stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers,
persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers,
disorderlypersons,personsneglectingalllawfulbusinessandhabituallyspendingtheirtimebyfrequentinghouses
of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but
habituallylivingupontheearningsoftheirwivesorminorchildrenshallbedeemedvagrantsand,uponconvictionin
theMunicipalCourtshallbepunishedasprovidedforClassDoffenses.

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacksonville declared the ordinance unconstitutional, because such activities or
habitsasnightwalking,wanderingorstrollingaroundwithoutanylawfulpurposeorobject,habitualloafing,habitual
spendingoftimeatplaceswherealcoholicbeveragesaresoldorserved,andlivingupontheearningsofwivesor
minor children, which are otherwise common and normal, were declared illegal. But these are specific acts or
activitiesnotfoundinArticle202(2).TheclosesttoArticle202(2)"anypersonfoundloiteringaboutpublicor
semipublicbuildingsorplaces,ortrampingorwanderingaboutthecountryorthestreetswithoutvisiblemeansof
support" from the Jacksonville ordinance, would be "persons wandering or strolling around from place to place
withoutanylawfulpurposeorobject."Butthesetwoactsarestillnotthesame:Article202(2)isqualifiedby"without
visible means of support" while the Jacksonville ordinance prohibits wandering or strolling "without any lawful
purposeorobject,"whichwasheldbytheU.S.SupremeCourttoconstitutea"trapforinnocentacts."

Under the Constitution, the people are guaranteed the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresofwhatevernatureandforanypurpose,andnosearchwarrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 5/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.24 Thus, as with any other act or
offense,therequirementofprobablecauseprovidesanacceptablelimitonpoliceorexecutiveauthoritythatmay
otherwise be abused in relation to the search or arrest of persons found to be violating Article 202 (2). The fear
exhibitedbytherespondents,echoingJacksonville,thatunfettereddiscretionisplacedinthehandsofthepoliceto
makeanarrestorsearch,isthereforeassuagedbytheconstitutionalrequirementofprobablecause,whichisone
lessthancertaintyorproof,butmorethansuspicionorpossibility.25

Evidently,therequirementofprobablecausecannotbedoneawaywitharbitrarilywithoutpainofpunishment,for,
absent this requirement, the authorities are necessarily guilty of abuse. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion
thereforemustbefoundedonprobablecause,coupledwithgoodfaithofthepeaceofficersmakingthearrest.26

TheStatecannotinacavalierfashionintrudeintothepersonsofitscitizensaswellasintotheirhouses,papersand
effects. The constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an impenetrable armor against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful
arrests and other forms of restraint, and prevents him from being irreversibly cut off from that domestic security
whichrendersthelivesofthemostunhappyinsomemeasureagreeable.27

As applied to the instant case, it appears that the police authorities have been conducting previous surveillance
operationsonrespondentspriortotheirarrest.Onthesurface,thissatisfiestheprobablecauserequirementunder
ourConstitution.Forthisreason,wearenotmovedbyrespondentstrepidationthatArticle202(2)couldhavebeen
asourceofpoliceabuseintheircase.

SincetheRevisedPenalCodetookeffectin1932,nochallengehaseverbeenmadeupontheconstitutionalityof
Article202exceptnow.Instead,throughouttheyears,wehavewitnessedthestreetsandparksbecomedangerous
and unsafe, a haven for beggars, harassing "watchyourcar" boys, petty thieves and robbers, pickpockets,
swindlers, gangs, prostitutes, and individuals performing acts that go beyond decency and morality, if not basic
humanity.Thestreetsandparkshavebecomethetraininggroundforpettyoffenderswhograduateintohardened
and battlescarred criminals. Everyday, the news is rife with reports of innocent and hardworking people being
robbed,swindled,harassedormauledifnotkilledbythescourgeofthestreets.Bluecollarworkersarerobbed
straightfromwithdrawinghardearnedmoneyfromtheATMs(automatedtellermachines)studentsareheldupfor
having to use and thus exhibit publicly their mobile phones frail and helpless men are mauled by thrillseeking
gangsinnocentpassersbyarestabbedtodeathbyrowdydrunkenmenwalkingthestreetsfairlookingorpretty
women are stalked and harassed, if not abducted, raped and then killed robbers, thieves, pickpockets and
snatchers case streets and parks for possible victims the old are swindled of their life savings by conniving
streetsmart bilkers and con artists on the prowl beggars endlessly pester and panhandle pedestrians and
commuters,posingahealththreatandputtinglawabidingdriversandcitizensatriskofrunningthemover.Allthese
happenonthestreetsandinpublicplaces,dayornight.

Thestreetsmustbeprotected.Ourpeopleshouldneverdreadhavingtoplythemeachday,orelsewecannever
saythatwehaveperformedourtasktoourbrothersandsisters.Wemustridthestreetsofthescourgeofhumanity,
andrestoreorder,peace,civility,decencyandmoralityinthem.

This is exactly why we have public order laws, to which Article 202 (2) belongs. These laws were crafted to
maintainminimumstandardsofdecency,moralityandcivilityinhumansociety.Theselawsmaybetracedall
thewaybacktoancienttimes,andtoday,theyhavealsocometobeassociatedwiththestruggletoimprovethe
citizensqualityoflife,whichisguaranteedbyourConstitution.28Civilly,theyarecoveredbythe"abuseofrights"
doctrineembodiedinthepreliminaryarticlesoftheCivilCodeconcerningHumanRelations,totheend,inpart,that
any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
publicpolicyshallcompensatethelatterforthedamage.29Thisprovisionis,togetherwiththesucceedingarticles
onhumanrelations,intendedtoembodycertainbasicprinciples"thataretobeobservedfortherightfulrelationship
betweenhumanbeingsandforthestabilityofthesocialorder."30

Incivillaw,forexample,thesummaryremedyofejectmentisintendedtopreventcriminaldisorderandbreachesof
thepeaceandtodiscouragethosewho,believingthemselvesentitledtothepossessionoftheproperty,resortto
forceratherthantosomeappropriateactionincourttoasserttheirclaims.31Anyprivatepersonmayabateapublic
nuisancewhichisspeciallyinjurioustohimbyremoving,orifnecessary,bydestroyingthethingwhichconstitutes
thesame,withoutcommittingabreachofthepeace,ordoingunnecessaryinjury.32

Criminally,publicorderlawsencompassawholerangeofactsfrompublicindecenciesandimmoralities,topublic
nuisances, to disorderly conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to societys basic
sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life of the people of society. For example, the issuance or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 6/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364

makingofabouncingcheckisdeemedapublicnuisance,acrimeagainstpublicorderthatmustbeabated.33Asa
matterofpublicpolicy,thefailuretoturnovertheproceedsofthesaleofthegoodscoveredbyatrustreceiptorto
returnsaidgoods,ifnotsold,isapublicnuisancetobeabatedbytheimpositionofpenalsanctions.34Thus,public
nuisances must be abated because they have the effect of interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or
propertybymembersofacommunity.

Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause neither does it discriminate against the poor and the
unemployed.Offendersofpublicorderlawsarepunishednotfortheirstatus,asforbeingpoororunemployed,but
for conducting themselves under such circumstances as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and
apprehensioninthecommunity.Beingpoororunemployedisnotalicenseorajustificationtoactindecentlyorto
engageinimmoralconduct.

Vagrancymustnotbesolightlytreatedastobeconsideredconstitutionallyoffensive.Itisapublicordercrimewhich
punishespersonsforconductingthemselves,atacertainplaceandtimewhichorderlysocietyfindsunusual,under
suchconditionsthatarerepugnantandoutrageoustothecommonstandardsandnormsofdecencyandmoralityin
a just, civilized and ordered society, as would engender a justifiable concern for the safety and wellbeing of
membersofthecommunity.

Instead of taking an active position declaring public order laws unconstitutional, the State should train its eye on
their effective implementation, because it is in this area that the Court perceives difficulties. Red light districts
abound,gangsworkthestreetsintheweehoursofthemorning,dangerousrobbersandthievesplytheirtradein
thetrainsstations,drunkenmenterrorizelawabidingcitizenslateatnightandurinateonotherwisedecentcorners
of our streets. Rugbysniffing individuals crowd our national parks and busy intersections. Prostitutes wait for
customersbytheroadsideallaroundthemetropolis,someevenventureinbarsandrestaurants.Drugcrazedmen
loiterarounddarkavenueswaitingtopounceonhelplesscitizens.Dangerousgroupswanderaround,casinghomes
and establishments for their next hit. The streets must be made safe once more. Though a mans house is his
castle,35outsideonthestreets,thekingisfairgame.

Thedangerousstreetsmustsurrendertoorderlysociety.

Finally,weagreewiththepositionoftheStatethatfirstandforemost,Article202(2)shouldbepresumedvalidand
constitutional.Whenconfrontedwithaconstitutionalquestion,itiselementarythateverycourtmustapproachitwith
grave care and considerable caution bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and every reasonable
doubtshouldberesolvedinfavorofitsconstitutionality.36Thepolicyofourcourtsistoavoidrulingonconstitutional
questions and to presume that the acts of the political departments are valid in the absence of a clear and
unmistakableshowingtothecontrary.Todoubtistosustain,thispresumptionisbasedonthedoctrineofseparation
of powers which enjoins upon each department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The
theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied,
craftedanddeterminedtobeinaccordancewiththefundamentallawbeforeitwasfinallyenacted.37

Itmustnotbeforgottenthatpolicepowerisaninherentattributeofsovereignty.Ithasbeendefinedasthepower
vestedbytheConstitutioninthelegislaturetomake,ordain,andestablishallmannerofwholesomeandreasonable
laws,statutesandordinances,eitherwithpenaltiesorwithout,notrepugnanttotheConstitution,astheyshalljudge
tobeforthegoodandwelfareofthecommonwealth,andforthesubjectsofthesame.Thepowerisplenaryandits
scopeisvastandpervasive,reachingandjustifyingmeasuresforpublichealth,publicsafety,publicmorals,andthe
generalwelfare.38Asanobviouspolicepowermeasure,Article202(2)mustthereforebeviewedinaconstitutional
light.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheDecisionofBranch11oftheRegionalTrialCourtofDavaoCityin
Special Civil Case No. 305002004 declaring Article 202, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code
UNCONSTITUTIONALisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.

LettheproceedingsinCriminalCasesNos.115,716C2003and115,717C2003thuscontinue.

Nocosts.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 7/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN*
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

*InlieuofAssociateJusticeAntonioEduardoB.NachuraperraffledatedSeptember16,2009.

1Records,pp.108113pennedbyJudgeVirginiaHofileaEuropa.

2Rollo,p.25.

3Records,pp.3776.

4Id.at3134pennedbyPresidingJudgeRomeoC.Abarracin.

5Id.at33.

6Id.at31.DocketedasSpecialCivilCaseNo.305002004andraffledtoBranch11oftheRegionalTrial
CourtofDavaoCity.
7G.R.No.148560,November19,2001,369SCRA394.

8Rollo,p.31.

9405U.S.156,31L.Ed.2d110(1972).

10Rollo,p.31.

11Id.

12Id.at11.

13G.R.No.152259,July29,2004,435SCRA371.

1421AmJur12,13.

15Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 339 U.S. v. Brewer, 139 U.S. 278, 35
L.Ed.190,193.

16Estradav.Sandiganbayan,supranote6.

17Supranote12.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 8/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364
18Id.at420.

1957P.L.J.421(1982).

20Supranote8.

21Supranote8at405U.S.163171.

22CIVILCODE,Article3.

23Bryanv.UnitedStates(968422),122F.3d90.TheCourtheld:

Petitionernextarguesthatwemustread924(a)(1)(D)torequireknowledgeofthelawbecauseofour
interpretation of "willfully" in two other contexts. In certain cases involving willful violations of the tax
laws,wehaveconcludedthatthejurymustfindthatthedefendantwasawareofthespecificprovision
of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e.g.,Cheek v. UnitedStates, 498 U.S. 192,
201(1991).Similarly,inordertosatisfyawillfulviolationinRatzlaf,weconcludedthatthejuryhadto
findthatthedefendantknewthathisstructuringofcashtransactionstoavoidareportingrequirement
wasunlawful.See510U.S.,at138,149.Thosecases,however,arereadilydistinguishable.Boththe
tax cases and Ratzlaf involved highly technical statutes that presented the danger of ensnaring
individualsengagedinapparentlyinnocentconduct.Asaresult,weheldthatthesestatutes"carv[e]out
an exception to the traditional rule" that ignorance of the law is no excuse and require that the
defendant have knowledge of the law. The danger of convicting individuals engaged in apparently
innocentactivitythatmotivatedourdecisionsinthetaxcasesandRatzlafisnotpresentherebecause
thejuryfoundthatthispetitionerknewthathisconductwasunlawful.

Thus, the willfulness requirement of 924(a)(1)(D) does not carve out an exception to the traditional
rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is
required.(Emphasissupplied)
24CONSTITUTION,Art.III,Sec.2.

2579C.J.S.,SearchandSeizures,Sec.74,865.

26Peoplev.Molina,G.R.No.133917,February19,2001,352SCRA174.

27Peoplev.Bolasa,G.R.No.125754,December22,1999,321SCRA459.

28 CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensuretheprosperityandindependenceofthenationandfreethepeoplefrompovertythroughpoliciesthat
provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved
qualityoflifeforall.

29CIVILCODE,Article19.

30Sea Commercial Company Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122823, November 25, 1999, 319 SCRA
210.

31Drilonv.Gaurana,No.L35482,April30,1987,149SCRA342.

32CIVILCODE,Article704.

33Ruizv.People,G.R.No.160893,November18,2005,475SCRA476.

34Tiomicov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.122539,March4,1999,304SCRA216.

35Villanuevav.Querubin,G.R.No.L26177,48SCRA345.

36Lacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.128096,January20,1999,301SCRA298.

37Macasianov.NationalHousingAuthority,G.R.No.107921,July1,1993,224SCRA236.

38Bernas,The1987ConstitutionofthePhilippines,ACommentary,pp.9598[1996].

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 9/10
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169364

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_169364_2009.html 10/10