GR L 2729; (February, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2729; February 1, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAUL AZANZA y RODRIGUEZ, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant, Raul Azanza y Rodriguez, was charged with vagrancy under a Manila city ordinance for habitually idly loitering in the public waiting rooms and hallways of the City Fiscal’s office at City Hall during December 1946 without giving a good account of himself. He was convicted in the municipal court and, upon appeal, again convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which imposed a prison sentence and a fine. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from detective Ramon Somes, indicated that for a week prior to December 21, 1946, the appellant was habitually observed loitering in the City Hall lobby, doing nothing except talking to drivers who had received traffic violation tickets, ostensibly to “fix” their cases. Despite warnings, he continued until his arrest on December 21, 1946.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime of vagrancy as charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that while the information used the language of the ordinance, the prosecution’s evidence essentially sought to prosecute him for fixing traffic cases and failing to explain his livelihood, not merely for idly loitering without explanation. The appellant testified that on the day of his arrest, he was at the City Hall to see his godfather, Fiscal Villarosa, regarding his brother’s marriage certificate, and that he worked as a bondsman for a detective agency and operated two jeeps. These explanations were uncontradicted. The Court found that the appellant was not prosecuted for being unemployed, and the act desired to be stopped—allegedly victimizing drivers by fixing cases—was not the offense for which he was formally charged. Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for vagrancy as defined by the ordinance. The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the appellant’s constitutional challenge to the ordinance.