GR 1586; (April, 1904) (Digest)
March 7, 2026GR 1590; (April, 1904) (Digest)
March 7, 2026G.R. No. 1574 : April 13, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CHOA CHI CO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
On February 16, 1903, a deputy prosecuting attorney filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging Espiridion Yandon, Tan Chan Chang, Choa Chi Co, Chong Quah Co, Lim Tan Co, Uy Bunta, Ny Chin, Lucia Alcantara, Placida Flores, Juana Villara, and Patricia Yanda with the crime of vagrancy. The information alleged that on or about February 16, 1903, the accused lived in and about a house of ill fame located at No. 94 Calle Ilang-Ilang, Binondo, Manila. The male accused were described as depraved and dissolute persons, and the female accused (Alcantara, Villara, Flores, and Yanda) as common prostitutes. After trial, the court convicted all accused and imposed varying prison sentences. Choa Chi Co appealed the judgment, which had become final as to the other accused.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to convict the appellant, Choa Chi Co, of the crime of vagrancy under Act No. 519.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court with respect to Choa Chi Co and acquitted him.
The Court found that the evidence for the prosecution established that the house at No. 94 Calle Ilang-Ilang was a house of ill fame and that the women arrested there were prostitutes. However, as to the appellant Choa Chi Co, the only evidence was that he was arrested at the said house along with the other defendants. There was no evidence presented to show that he frequented or lived in the house, or that he was a person of lewd and dissolute habits without a known trade or occupation. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that Choa Chi Co lived at No. 293 Calle Rosario, worked as a clerk in a store, and was at the house on Calle Ilang-Ilang only to look for a fellow-lodger whom he did not find. In the absence of any evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, his acquittal was warranted. The case was remanded to the trial court for execution of the judgment.