Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

US vs. WILLIAM C. HART, C. J.

MILLER, and SERVILIANO NATIVIDAD


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.

Вам также может понравиться