G.R. No. 169364 ; September 18, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. EVANGELINE SITON y SACIL and KRYSTEL KATE SAGARANO y MEFANIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with vagrancy under Article 202(2) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly loitering on public streets without visible means of support. They filed Motions to Quash the Informations, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Municipal Trial Court denied their motions, upholding the statute as a valid exercise of police power. The court cited the need to balance individual liberty with public welfare and noted police surveillance reports of prostitution in the area where respondents were found.
Aggrieved, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition directly with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), challenging the constitutionality of Article 202(2). They contended the provision was impermissibly vague, criminalized ordinary peaceful acts, and violated the equal protection clause by discriminating against the poor and unemployed. The State, through the Solicitor General, argued that the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines were inapplicable to penal statutes and that the law enjoyed a presumption of constitutionality.

ISSUE

Whether or not Article 202(2) of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes vagrancy, is unconstitutional for being void for vagueness and for violating the equal protection clause.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s ruling and declared Article 202(2) unconstitutional. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness so ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited. Article 202(2) fails this test as its terms—”loitering,” “wandering about,” and “without visible means of support”—are so broad and ambiguous that they do not provide a clear standard for law enforcement. This lack of precision encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, as it gives police officers unbridled discretion to determine who is violating the law based on subjective judgments.
Furthermore, the provision violates the equal protection clause. It creates an unreasonable classification by targeting individuals based on their economic status—specifically, the poor and unemployed who appear to have no visible means of support. The law criminalizes a person’s status or condition rather than a specific, overt criminal act. The State’s legitimate interest in preventing crime does not justify a statute that effectively punishes poverty and allows for the arrest of individuals merely for being in a public place without demonstrating a “lawful purpose,” which is itself an undefined term. The law is overbroad as it sweeps within its ambit innocent, constitutionally protected activities like mere movement or presence in public areas.