People v Siton

- Siton and Sagarano were charged with Vagrancy pursuant to Art 202 (2) of the RPC
- Information stated: On Nov 14,2003 in Davao City the accused willfully loitered and wandered in
San Pedro and Legaspi streets without any visible means to support herself nor lawful and
justifiable purpose.
- Art 202 (2) provides: Any person found loitering about public or semi public buildings or places
or tramping or wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of support.
- The arresting officer based on his prior surveillance reported that accused were frequent
vagrants and prostitutes who solicited sec favors
- Respondents challenge the constitutionality of the anti vagrancy law because it is vague and is
arbitrary in identifying violators since the crimes coverage includes those who are otherwise
performing peaceful acts
- Art 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause (provides a specific guaranty against any form
of undue favoritism or hostility from the govt, weapon to challenge arbitrariness or
unwarranted partiality) In this case respondents claimed it discriminated against poor and
unemployed thus an arbitrary classification
- Petitioners: There is assumption of constitutionality yet to be rebutted, In the case of Estrada vs
Sandiganbayan void for vagueness and overbreath doctrine only apply to free speech and not
penal statutes
- RTC declared Anti Vagrancy law unconstitutional citing a case in the US that struck down a penal
statute as being unconstitutional (papachristou)
- RTC opined that the Anti Vagrancy law violates ep as it offers no reasonable classification of
those covered by the law and those who are not such as indicators to differentiate who has no
visible means of support by force or cirmstance and those who just choose to bum around

ISSUE: W/N the Article 202 (2) of the RPC is unconstitutional?

HELD: NO, the power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties is legislative and
inherent in the sovereign power of the state to maintain social order via police power. However in
exercising its power to declare what acts constitute a crime. Legislature MUST inform with reasonable
precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may have a certain understandable rule of conduct
and know what acts it is his duty to avoid (void for vagueness doctrine)

Art 202 (2) is based on sec 1 Act 519 which defined vagrant as every person found loitering in saloons,
dramshops,gambling houses or tramping through country without visible means of support.

RTC is mistaken in taking support from papachristou which are defined by principles such as the failure
of the ordinance to give fair notice that a certain conduct in forbidden by law and this law encourages
opportunities for discriminatory law enforcement. (forbidden acts included nightwalking, strolling acts
not found in art 202 section 2)

In this case, there was probable cause since police authorities have been conducting previous
surveillances and this law took effect in 1932 without challenge to its constitutionality. We have
witnessed petty thieves, beggars, watch your car boys. Art 202 (2) is a public order law to maintain
standards of decency in society, which is guaranteed by consti.. What is punished by the law is nt their
status, but for conducting themselves that endanger public peace or cause alarm.