G.R. No. L-11797; April 27, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELEUTERIO BELTRAN Y ANGELES, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Eleuterio Beltran y Angeles was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with violating Rule IX, paragraph 2, of Ordinance No. 2646 (the Traffic Code) for “jaywalking.” The information alleged that on May 24, 1956, in Manila, he willfully crossed the street at the South approach of Jones Bridge outside of a designated pedestrian lane. The Municipal Court found him guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the court, after the prosecution rested, rendered judgment finding that his admitted act constituted a violation of Rule IX, paragraph 2, in relation to the second part of paragraph 3 of the same ordinance, and imposed the same penalty. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The trial court found that at about 6:00 p.m. on May 24, 1956, the accused crossed Magallanes Street from the Southern approach of Jones Bridge to a point on Island No. 2 along a path not marked as a pedestrian lane. It was admitted there were no sign-posts near those two points. The evidence showed there was a properly marked pedestrian lane in front of the Post Office Building and another between the Post Office Building and the Southern approach.

ISSUE

Whether the act of the appellant in crossing Magallanes Street at a point not marked as a pedestrian lane constitutes a violation of Rule IX, paragraphs 2 and 3, of Ordinance No. 2646 (the Manila Traffic Code).

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Traffic Code. Rule IX, paragraph 2, advises pedestrians to cross streets at right angles preferably at regular crossings or designated places. Rule IX, paragraph 3, makes it unlawful for any person to cross specifically enumerated streets (including Escolta, Rizal Avenue, Taft Avenue, etc.) where safety zones are marked and sign-posted, provided that persons crossing at these places shall follow the safety lines marked. It also imposes a duty on the police department to mark such safety zones and states that “until such safety zones have been properly marked and sign posted… no prosecutions shall be instituted against any one for violation of the provisions of this paragraph.”
The Court found that Magallanes Street, where the appellant crossed, is not among the streets specifically enumerated in the first part of paragraph 3 where crossing is prohibited or made unlawful. Therefore, crossing Magallanes Street “as nearly as possible at right angle” is allowed under paragraph 2. The safety zone marked in front of the Post Office Building was 45 to 75 meters away from where the appellant started to cross. Since the crossing was on a street not covered by the prohibitory list in paragraph 3, and the ordinance only advises—but does not mandate—crossing at designated places on such streets, the appellant’s act did not constitute a violation. Consequently, the judgment of conviction could not be sustained.