G.R. No. L-8848, November 21, 1913 Facts: The appellants, Hart, Miller, and Natividad, were found guilty on a charge of vagrancy under theprovisions of Act No. 519. All three appealed and presented evidence showing that each of thedefendants was earning a living at a lawful trade or business sufficient enough to supportthemselves. However, the Attorney-General defended his clients by arguing that in Section 1 of Act No. 519, the phraseno visible means of support only applies to the clause tramping or straying through the country and not the first clause which states that every person foundloitering about saloons or dram shops or gambling houses, thus making the 3 appellants guilty of vagrancy. He further argued that it been intended for without visible means of support to qualify the first part of the clause, either the comma after gambling houses would have beenomitted, or else a comma after country would have been inserted. Issue: WON Hart, Miller and Natividad are guilty of vagrancy under the AttorneyGenerals argument based on a mere grammatical criticism. Held: An argument based upon punctuation alone is not conclusive and the effect intended by theLegislature should be the relevant determinant of the interpretation of the law. When themeaning of a legislative enactment is in question, it is the duty of the courts to ascertain, if possible, the true legislative intention, and adopt that construction of the statute which will give iteffect. Moreover, ascertaining the consequences flowing from such a construction of the law isalso helpful in determining the soundness of the reasoning.Considering that the argument of the Attorney-General would suggest a lack of logicalclassification on the part of the legislature of the various classes of vagrants and since it wasproven that all three of the defendants were earning a living by legitimate means at a level of comfort higher than usual, Hart, Miller and Natividad were acquitted, with the costs de oficio.