G.R. No. 44933 ; June 30, 1937
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANASTASIA BARABASA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Anastasia Barabasa was charged with vagrancy under Section 822 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila for habitually and idly loitering about cafes, drinking saloons, and hotels. The evidence showed that on multiple nights in November 1935, she was found in various hotels and bars in the company of American soldiers, inviting them to spend time together, sitting on their laps, and leaving with them in taxis. She was convicted in both the municipal court and the Court of First Instance. On appeal, she argued that there was no proof she had no visible means of support and that the trial court erred in refusing to hear her witness, Sergeant Sneider, who would testify that he paid her a monthly pension.

ISSUE

Whether the accused is guilty of vagrancy under Section 822 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that she had no visible means of support, and whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of her witness.

RULING

Yes, the accused is guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that under Section 822 and established jurisprudence (citing States vs. Giner Cruz), having no visible means of support is not an essential element of the vagrancy offense defined therein. The proven habitual idle loitering in the specified establishments, coupled with her behavior as a woman catering to soldiers’ pleasures, is sufficient to constitute vagrancy. Regarding the excluded testimony, the Court ruled that the trial court’s refusal to hear Sergeant Sneider was not reversible error, as the evidence was merely cumulative, immaterial, and unnecessary, and would not have altered the outcome of the case. The appealed sentence was affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.