U.S. vs Hart, et al.

,
G.R. No. 8848
November 21, 1913
TRENT, J.:
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
This case is about vagrancy
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Hart, Miller and Natividad were accused of Gambling and Vagrancy
where they all appealed.
Hart had ran gambling games in his saloon ever night one in Angeles
and one in the Bario of Tacondo. He also operated a hotel Angeles in which
he did a business. He was also a proprietor He raised hogs which he sold to
the Army garrison at Camp Stotsenberg. He was also authorized to sell
several hundered hectarcs of land owned by one Carrillo in Tacondo. With the
power of an attorney, he furnished the same property and paid for the 1st
public school in Tacondo.
Miller had the reputation of being a gambler and that he was fined for
gambling and was seen in houses of prostitution. Miller was discharged from
the Army last year. He had the position of Sergeant and received a rating as
"excellent" on being discharged. He had a partnership with one Buckered
and invested P1000. The business netted him P300 per month.
Natividad was also a gambler. During his visits to saloons, he
sometimes acted as a banker. His occupancy is that of a tailor which was
sufficient enough to support his family.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
The appellants, Hart, Miller, and Natividad, were arraigned in the Court
of First Instance of
Pampanga on a charge of vagrancy under the provision of Act No. 519, found
guilty, and were
each sentenced to six months imprisonment. Hart and Miller were further
sentenced to a fine
of P200, and Natividad to a fine of P100. All appealed.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Hart, Miller and Natividad have committed the act of
Vagrancy.

RULING:
Defendants are AQUITTED
Act No. 519 states that:
"(1) Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who had the
physical ability to work, and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some
lawful calling; (2) every person found loitering about saloons or dram shops or
gambling housed, or tramping or straying through the country without visible
means of support; (3) every person known to be a pickpocket, thief, burglar,
ladrone, either by his own confession or by his having been convicted of either
said offenses, and having no visible or lawful means of support when found
loitering about any gambling house, cockpit, or in any outlying barrio of a
pueblo; (4) every idle or dissolute person of associate of known thieves or
ladrones who wanders about the country at unusual hours of the night; (5)
every idle person who lodges in any barn, shed, outhouse, vessel, or place
other than such as is kept for lodging purposed, without the permission of the
owner or a person entitled to the possession thereof; (6) every lewd or
dissolute person who lives in and about houses of ill fame; every common
prostitute and common drunkard, is a vagrant."

It is insisted by the Attorney General (AG) that visible means of

support, which are evident in the occupations of the accused, would not be a
bar to the conviction under any one of the last four (4) clauses of the said
act. The AG contends that "visible means of support" only applies to those
"staying through the country".
The courts decided that the mere missing of the punctuation cannot
hold bar the argument of the AG, since the intention of the legislators was to
prevent "loitering". It was stated that loitering was idling or wasting one's
time. The time spent in saloons drum shops, and gambling houses is
anything but that.
The three defendants were earning a living by legitimate means in a degree
of comfort higher than the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which
the legislature has yet to make a subject of penal law.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
For these reasons, the defendants are ACQUITTED, with the costs de
oficio.