G.R.

169364
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs EVANGELINE SITON y SACIL AND KRYSTEL
KATE SAGARANO y MEFANIA
SEPTEMBER 18, 2009
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J:
FACTS:
A petition for review on certiorari was assailed with regard to declaring paragraph 2 of
Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code as unconstitutional.

Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with vagrancy
pursuant to Article 202 of RPC. They were found that they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
wandered and loitered around the city without visible means to support herself nor lawful and
justifiable purpose.
The respondents contended that the law is deemed unconstitutional for being vague and
overbroad. Municipal Trial Court declared the law on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to State’s
police power, hence, denied their motions.
Regional Trial Court by their petition then affirmed their contention declaring Paragraph
2 of Article 202 unconstitutional due to its vagueness and violated the equal protection clause.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court is correct in declaring Article 202 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code, unconstitutional?

HELD:

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, manifesting that Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code is deemed constitutional; it
does not violate equal protection clause nor discriminate against poor and unemployed. Hence, it
was crafted for the purpose of public order laws which encompass a whole range of acts from
public indecencies and immoralities to public nuisances to disorderly conduct.

Offenders of public order laws are punished not for their status but for conducting
themselves under such circumstances as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and
apprehension in the community.